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.

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...

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.

Please do NOT break this post up into parts when you try to attack me, especially since ALL 3 paragraphs are both related and relevant regarding this definition. If you disagree with this definition, then please provide a recommended improvement. If you just don't like it because it effectively refutes YOUR opinion regarding a rules change, then maybe you should come up with a better argument.

Normally I'm ridiculed ad nauseum about my absolute cluelessness regarding the rules of golf (3 mistakes in a single sentence...) This is just a proposed definition from an ignorant bastard who could not ever have been cognizant of the rules of golf, and yet...crickets...What is wrong with this proposed definition???

I have been lectured and condescended to by people like you who think they know everything and are therefore above reproach. Your response to my response to this thread and specifically to @iacas who unilaterally changed the rules and REQUIRED that people who voted in favor of the rule change (AKA, the topic of this FREAKING discussion) indicated that you not only didn't read it, but that you are CLUELESS as well! You must be on the inner circle to be able to get away with such flagrant bullshit... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over??? What about my proposed definition of a divot hole offended your delicate arse so much???

One of the unfortunate changes in the recent ROG is that they introduced a "General Area", and eliminated the "Closely mown areas through the green" concept, which included fairways, fringes, and greens, including closely mown areas through the rough (as well as the walking path for golfers from the tee to the fairway). Great point regarding whether or not the soil is disrupted. We should not care what caused the disruption, only that it occurred. Some golfers are sweepers, others are diggers...OTOH, it seems like a reasonable decision for competitors to make (without a rules official) if the soil was disrupted. (They have been doing this for years regarding pitch marks on the green vs spike marks). Absolutely no clue how to answer the third question

YES! Thank You! Please be one of the people that acknowledges that the definition at least has merit. Mike Davis seemed to be overly concerned about this healing aspect, and in my opinion really dismissed the perspective of one of the Greatest Golfers of All Time!!! He wasn't being gentle, he was a hack golfer/lawyer being polite to a legend.

minutes ago

Point taken. But please provide your position on the proposed definition of Divot Hole that I provided,

And THIS is why I tried to provide a definition that was acceptable to at least 3 "No type People"...RUKM??? For some reason I have to convince supporters of the cult before I am allowed to even try to clear the "Second Hurdle". BTW, I'm kinda sorta believing that my definition of Divot Hole can come close (although cults do tend to stick together...)

Love You Shorty, but read the title of this topic/thread. Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

Please read the entire post...I even specifically stated that "Mere disruptions in the surface area where the ball rests, differences in lie or conditions of grass, or even the complete absence of grass without the disruption in the soil shall NOT be considered a divot hole for relief purposes under this rule. 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." Wake up and smell the coffee...

LOL! Who give a rat's tail? DON'T Care! We are talking about relief n a Fairway! This thread is 100% about relief under GUR in the FAIRWAY! And your response includes false statements. I do not care what some of the "purist/elitist" consider "divot holes" and are trying to limit the definition to support their position. I wanted to present a definition that DEFIED all of the nitpicking so that we could get back to the original question of whether the rule should be changed. HINT: It Should!

While I am patiently waiting for the inevitable attacks from the holy warriors, I am convinced that even the GOAT, Mr. Jack Nicklaus, would agree with this definition and also would not be so kind in telling former USGA (whatever his position was) and lawyer Mike Davis to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

OK, here's my try at a definition of a divot hole that might help: A divot hole in the fairway is any disruption in an otherwise smooth contour of soil that even appears to have resulted from a torn-up piece of turf: e.g. by a club in making a stroke (including practice strokes), by a horse's hoof, or any similar damage that may have been caused by golfers, golf carts, vehicles, animals, or any landscaping or mowing equipment. Mere disruptions in the surface area where the ball rests, differences in lie or conditions of grass, or even the complete absence of grass without the disruption in the soil shall NOT be considered a divot hole for relief purposes under this rule. 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. Furthermore, if any part of the ball is resting in a sand/seed filled area in the fairway (or ANY closely mown area through the green), then it is presumed to be resting in Ground Under Repair and entitled to full relief under this rule. Whether the sand/seed completely or partially fills this area is irrelevant; once the sand/seed is placed into any disruption in a fairway it shall be deemed as Ground Under Repair.

LOL! Have you paid the least bit of attention to your compatriots who relentlessly attacked these loose definitions? LOL*10! You can't define a "divot hole" by declaring that it's a "divot hole" that wasn't made by a golf club. Maybe you should check out @Billy Z to figure out how to define things that the USGA can't...But then again, that's not our job!!! Let the USGA do it!!!

Shorty, You so funny! I edited my post to change the "we" to "USGA/R&A". If you really think they can't define "divot" then maybe they shouldn't be able to write the Rules of Golf!

Why should @Billy Z have to define anything? He is advocating for a position that is supported by a multitude of professional and amateur golfers (yeah, go ahead and question that despite all of the previous posts). Why don't YOU, @Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot??? There are so many of you that are so smug claiming that we need to convince you to change the rules; how about you trying to convince us (and a plurality of ALL golfers) on why we shouldn't change the rules! Not why "we" shouldn't change the rules, but why the "USGA/R&A" shouldn't change the rules.

We’ve stipulated that many golfers would want to see the rule. That doesn’t mean that: Such a rule follows the Principles of the Rules of Golf. Such a rule is even possible to write without basically just allowing lift, clean, and place or lift, clean, and drop in the fairway at all times. Thank you for allowing me to continue to discuss things here. Sooner or later new rules will not follow the "Principles of the Rules of Golf", aka, play the ball as it lies. The rules will evolve, whether you or I strenuously object or not (I was a golf rule fanatic in the 90's and knew the rules inside/out for stroke/medal/match play). And much to OUR dismay, this may ultimately result in a rule that allows Lift, Clean, and Drop in the fairway at all times, like they regularly use for junior events (at least at my course).

Nope. This definition requires the user to know what made the “abnormality.” (And we’ve already shown how divot holes are not abnormal at all on a golf course.) Not all divot holes are filled with sand (I don’t know what “filled with loose” means). To what point should the grass have grown back? Your definition fails quite poorly to be one that can be universally or consistently applied. I really just do NOT get this! This site is advertised as "The best site on the internet to talk golf with your fellow golfers." Apparently that's only if you completely agree with us. I am fully expecting to be censored or kicked off of this site for my honest opinions because they dare to be different from the authoritarians...about a freaking GAME! This entire thread is based on whether users SUPPORT a proposed rules change that PGA, LPGA, and many respondents to the USGA/R&A have fully supported (check out the recent posts!). Why is there tolerance of any user of this site being bullied into having to provide a definition of any aspect of this rule change, that can be "universally and consistently applied" in order to justify his/her support of a damn proposed rule change? Get over your ELITIST selves! Anyone should be able to support a proposed rules change without having to define every single aspect of it themselves. The USGA/R&A have consistently exhibited their incompetence in this matter, as evidenced by their bastardized anchor rule instead of a universal ban against long putters (Adam Scott and Bernhard Langer's long putters are 100% legal). (For the "purists" who clutch their pearls over long putters I actually have 4 of these legal weapons...the Horror...)

First of all, welcome to the discussion and best of luck with the subsequent onslaught against your position. Secondly, I have had several golf mates who would beg to differ with you with "figuring out where the fairway is", as during our competitions for most fairways hit we have always allowed for the "Mad/Drunk Mower" exception to where the fairway "Should" have been (majority rules!) :) Full Disclaimer: *Not based on Rules of Golf, but based on rules of buying first round*

You are responding too fast and much too cleverly for me to keep up! I was tempted to say in the original picture that I would prefer that kind of lie and approach as I had a built in excuse!!! I also thought it served as a classic example of abnormal ground conditions, but not if the whole course looked like that; kind of turns that definition up on its head!

Maybe not a "rules discussion", but maybe a discussion with the course superintendent about designating a huge portion of this as GUR, giving you the option of relief no closer to the hole...

Pro's and amateurs have been fixing these poorly repaired pitch marks on the greens for years, and the new rules changes even allows the tamping down (repair) of spike marks which would have been sufficient grounds for claims of cheating just a few years ago.