How would you handle unmarked GUR in a match?

[Big C]

The inquiry is based off a real & somewhat contentious interaction in a match play event recently (not mine).

Those of us who play enough muni golf have probably seen our fair share of crappy lies, or areas where the course conditions are really unfit for play. In some cases, those areas are marked as Ground Under Repair. In many cases, they are not.

In a casual round, your group can serve as the "committee" and determine whether a free drop is appropriate given the circumstances. In a stroke play tournament event, a competitor who believes he has found an unmarked area that should be GUR is entitled to play two balls under Rule 3-3 and ask the committee for a ruling afterward. In match play, however, things get a bit trickier.

 

In a match between two members of my mens club, one of the players found himself in a terrible spot. A muddy patch just off the green had been driven over recently by someone who had clearly parked their cart too close to the green. The result was a one inch deep tire track in which his ball ended up settling. He asked for relief as unmarked GUR. His opponent declined. After a brief argument, he played the ball as it lie, lost the hole and then the match one hole later. Afterwards, he told me that he couldn't believe his opponent would grant relief. In his mind, it was the right thing to do. He showed me a picture of the lie and I had to agree it was pretty bad.

 

But my question isn't about the etiquitte of the situation, but rather the rules. Could the affected player have taken it upon himself to declare the area as GUR? Of course, his opponent may have filed a claim at that point. But practically speaking, would it have been possible for him to take the drop, play the hole out, and then go back afterward (assuming that his opponent did indeed make a claim) with a head pro or other official to get a ruling on the area?

 

[DaveP043]

The closest thing I can find in the rules is this decision:

Rut Made by Tractor

Q.Is a rut made by a tractor considered a hole made by a greenkeeper and thus ground under repair? If not, should the Committee declare such a rut to be ground under repair?

A.Such a rut is not a hole made by a greenkeeper. The Committee would be justified in declaring a deep rut to be ground under repair, but not a shallow indentation made by greenkeeping equipment.

The rut you describe could fall under the same definition, as GUR.  

As I read Rule 2.5, about disputes in match play, the affected player could have played it as GUR, and let his opponent make a claim.  If it turns out that he's taken relief incorrectly, the penalty would be loss of the hole, so its not like he's really lost anything.  If it was bad enough that he had no chance of pulling off the shot from the rut, I think that would have been the way to go.

 

[saevel25]

In a match between two members of my mens club, one of the players found himself in a terrible spot. A muddy patch just off the green had been driven over recently by someone who had clearly parked their cart too close to the green. The result was a one inch deep tire track in which his ball ended up settling. He asked for relief as unmarked GUR. His opponent declined. After a brief argument, he played the ball as it lie, lost the hole and then the match one hole later. Afterwards, he told me that he couldn't believe his opponent would grant relief. In his mind, it was the right thing to do. He showed me a picture of the lie and I had to agree it was pretty bad.

I wouldn't have given him relief as well. Primarily under section 1 you can not agree to waive the rules. Since the ground was not marked GUR then you play it as it lies. If I agreed to let you have relief then I would have allowed you to waive a rule. That would mean we both would be disqualified. 

[Rulesman]

I wouldn't have given him relief as well. Primarily under section 1 you can not agree to waive the rules. Since the ground was not marked GUR then you play it as it lies. If I agreed to let you have relief then I would have allowed you to waive a rule. That would mean we both would be disqualified. 

2-5/8.5

Player and Opponent Agree on Incorrect Procedure; Whether Valid Claim May Be Made After Procedure Followed

Q.In a match, a player's ball comes to rest on an artificially-surfaced road. He is uncertain if the road is to be treated as an immovable obstruction or an integral part of the course. He asks his opponent and they agree that the player should treat the road as an immovable obstruction. The player drops the ball in accordance with the procedure under Rule 24-2b and plays it. Prior to playing from the next tee, the opponent discovers that he and the player were wrong as the Committee had introduced a Local Rule declaring the road to be an integral part of the course and, therefore, the player was not entitled to take relief under Rule 24-2b. The player should have incurred a loss of hole penalty under Rule 18 for lifting his ball without authority and failing to replace it. May the opponent claim the hole?

A.No. The claim must not be considered by the Committee because the opponent and the player agreed that the player was entitled to relief under Rule 24-2b. When this agreement was reached, there was no longer a doubtful or disputed point and there was no basis under Rule 2-5 for making a claim.

The players were not in breach of Rule 1-3 as they believed at the time they were proceeding properly.

[saevel25]

Here's the issue with that one. There is a rule for artificial surface roads. In that instance the players did not know that a local rule was in place. 

The rule for GUR is clear cut. You play the ball as it lies unless it's marked GUR. A player can either go under 3-3 for stroke play. The player can play the ball and make a claim to the committee. 

This isn't a local rule issue. I don't think that decision counts in this scenario. As a golfer who knows the GUR rule it is not my place to claim something is or isn't GUR. That is the committee's job. 

 

[Rulesman]

The players may both believe that tractor marks were in fact GUR or that they must have missed the 'posted' local rule. In the decision, the players don't know if there is a local rule declaring the path as an integral part of the course.

He is uncertain if the road is to be treated as an immovable obstruction or an integral part of the course. He asks his opponent and they agree that the player should treat the road as an immovable obstruction. 

He is uncertain if the tractor rut  is to be treated as GUR or not. He asks his opponent and they agree that the player should treat the rut as GUR. 

See also 1-3/5

[saevel25]

The players may both believe that tractor marks were in fact GUR or that they must have missed the 'posted' local rule. In the decision, the players don't know if there is a local rule declaring the path as an integral part of the course.

A committee does not have to make a tractor rut GUR. It says they would be justified in declaring. It does not say they have to declare it a GUR. It doesn't say it shall be GUR. If it isn't marked as such then the play is still to play the ball as it lies and either of the players depending on how it's played make a claim to the committee. 

Again, GUR has to be marked GUR. In all decisions they specify that the players bring the situation to the committee to review it. So unless it is marked GUR you can not assume it is GUR. 

25/16

 

Rut Made by Tractor

Q.Is a rut made by a tractor considered a hole made by a greenkeeper and thus ground under repair? If not, should the Committee declare such a rut to be ground under repair?

A.Such a rut is not a hole made by a greenkeeper. The Committee would be justified in declaring a deep rut to be ground under repair, but not a shallow indentation made by greenkeeping equipment.

Like many things in golf. We sometimes think the golf course should consider something GUR. In the end I've played out of bunkers with no sand that on other courses have been marked GUR before. I've played out of ripped up fairway due to it being wet and a golf cart went through there. It's golf. I don't get to decide what GUR is. That is why there is a process to go to the committee to have it reviewed. 

 

[rogolf]

A point to remember - your opponent is not a referee.  He has no right to "decline" your relief.  You have the right to do what you consider proper proceed accordingly.  If your opponent disagrees with your choices, he must file a claim in accordance with 2-5.

 

[Rulesman]

 

I don't get to decide what GUR is. That is why there is a process to go to the committee to have it reviewed. 

 

Of course. But if the players got it wrong and player B agreed to A's action, they have not agreed to waive a rule.

 "The players were not in breach of Rule 1-3 as they believed at the time they were proceeding properly." As 1-3/5 says.

[Golfingdad]

Of course. But if the players got it wrong and player B agreed to A's action, they have not agreed to waive a rule.

 "The players were not in breach of Rule 1-3 as they believed at the time they were proceeding properly." As 1-3/5 says.

Right.  An honest mistake on both players parts doesn't equal an agreement to waive a rule.

I think @DaveP043's suggestion makes the most sense.  Play it as GUR, let the opponent file a claim.  You were likely going to lose the hole playing it as it lie anyway, so it's not much of a gamble in that regard if you're wrong.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Golfingdad

[saevel25]

Of course. But if the players got it wrong and player B agreed to A's action, they have not agreed to waive a rule.

 "The players were not in breach of Rule 1-3 as they believed at the time they were proceeding properly." As 1-3/5 says.

I agree to that. 

I am saying, as a player who knows the GUR rules. I would not have agreed to grant him relief because it was not marked. If I did I would felt like I was waiving the rules. For me it's up to that player to bring a claim to the committee. 

[Golfingdad]

I agree to that. 
I am saying, as a player who knows the GUR rules. I would not have agreed to grant him relief because it was not marked. If I did I would felt like I was waiving the rules. For me it's up to that player to bring a claim to the committee. 

Actually, if I understand everything above correctly, it's up to him to ignore your opinion, play it as he feels he should play it, and then YOU bring a claim to the committee.  If he acquiesces to you then there isn't anything he can do about it because he can't use rule 3-3, and he can't get a hole awarded back to him after the fact.

[Fourputt]

I'm sort of wondering why nobody considered declaring the ball unplayable, and dropping under Rule 28.  At least then the bad lie can only be blamed for one additional stroke.  I've done that more than once in situations that might have been marked if the course bothered to do so.  

 

Unmarked GUR is not GUR.  That's all one really needs to know to proceed in the most certain manner.

[Rulesman]

Unmarked GUR is not GUR.  That's all one really needs to know to proceed in the most certain manner.

If the committee has posted a notice 'Local Rule - the tyre ruts to the left of the 12th green are GUR', they are GUR whether actually marked or not.

“Ground under repair” is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative.

 

[saevel25]

If the committee has posted a notice 'Local Rule - the tyre ruts to the left of the 12th green are GUR', they are GUR whether actually marked or not.

“Ground under repair” is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative.

 

Still I think it's the best option for the guy to take relief and the opponent making a claim to the committee. 

In the end all local rules should be given to the competitors.

[Martyn W]

 

 

Here's the issue with that one. There is a rule for artificial surface roads. In that instance the players did not know that a local rule was in place. 

The rule for GUR is clear cut. You play the ball as it lies unless it's marked GUR. A player can either go under 3-3 for stroke play. The player can play the ball and make a claim to the committee. 

This isn't a local rule issue. I don't think that decision counts in this scenario. As a golfer who knows the GUR rule it is not my place to claim something is or isn't GUR. That is the committee's job. 

 

The player doesn't make the claim, the opponent does. He must say he is making a claim, the reason, and that  he wants a ruling. He must do this before starting the next hole in order for the claim to be considered.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Martyn W

[saevel25]

That was pointed out earlier.

[DrvFrShow]

There's an area directly behind the fringe of the 2nd green that's marked GUR about 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time I'd rather land in a bunker. It becomes basically hardened ruts from lawnmowers and other equipment and the course removes the pink stakes. During casual play we always consider it GUR and drop behind it. In a match, I'd do the same, take a picture, and let my opponent take it up with the committee afterward because I'd stand a better chance with them than successfully hitting the ball out and winning the hole.

I'd also have to play the original ball and we'd have to score both results - probably halving the hole taking relief, and me losing the hole not taking relief. This would affect the length of the match.

The problem with challenging before the next hole in our cases is that the "committee" is in the clubhouse, or out giving a golf lesson, not on the course. We don't have officials at our tournaments.