m052310

I think it's at least as "pretty darn good" as the other rules that allow for a player not being able to be sure or "know." Why is this one worse? If players abuse the rule, they aren't abiding by the spirt of the rules. If you include the ball not being on grass in your definition, that's pretty hard to abuse. If they aren't virtually certain (or whatever certainty you want to assign) then they're cheating. If we're going to ban cheaters from golf courses, at least I'll finally be able to get whatever tee time I want. As to slow play, it has been pointed out many times in this thread how rare a ball ending up in a divot in the fairway is. That tracks with my experience. It seems to me that that alone would minimize the effect on pace of play. Further, a better lie makes it less likely a crappy golfer will hit a 30 yard worm-burner requiring two shots for what should have been one. That seems like improved pace of play. Any altercations would be no more than any other rule over which two competitors disagree as to application. I disagree that a divot relief rule would be any more frought with peril than the embedded ball rule or the way we determine where to take a drop from a lateral hazzard (red penalty area - whatever) from a long distance away. I also think its a weak justification to not have a rule because people are going to fight over it. I see and at least in part agree with your point about divot relief being counter to the principle of playing the course as you find it. That argument makes sense, though I think the embedded ball rule, for one, provides precedent for disregarding the principle when the powers that be so desire. That does not mean they should disregard it lightly though, which I think is (mostly) your point. For the record, I don't actually mind the rules requiring us to hit out of divots. I'd rather not and lean towards the change, but I don't feel strongly about it. I'm OK with the tradition and the need to deal with adversity even after hitting a (usually) good, or at least well aimed, shot; I can see that it adds something to the game. Thems the breaks, as they say. But, I think many here overstate the the strength of the case against change.

Absolutely agree the best rules are the most clear, specific, and equally applied. But I don't think the inability to draft a perfect rule is a strong argument against having a better than pretty darn good one. We all know that there are rules in golf that require some judgment/estimation, especially for everyone playing without the benefit of spotters (stuff like where a ball crossed a penalty area or OB, for example). Also agree that reasonably certain leaves some wiggle room. You could go with virtually certain (95% sure a players swing caused it) since known is pretty unlikely in this scenario. I concede a divot relief rule would necessarily have a small degree of uncertainty to it; it's pretty unlikely anyone could "know" the messed up ground their ball is in/on was caused by a players swing unless they saw the previous swing up close and somehow hit into that nearby divot.

I know this wasn't directed at me. I hope you don't mind me jumping into the discussion; slow night here. I don't completely see why its a problem that some golfers might flub it on applying the definition as long as the definition makes it clear to the vast majority of reasonable golfers. This reminds me of when Bryson tried to get relief from the fire ant (I think he went with trying to call it a dangerous animal?) and everyone just laughed at him, including, I assume, the rules official that made the ruling once the cameras weren't around. If you're reasonably certain the spot the ball lies on was damaged by a golfers swing, take the relief. (I'd consider throwing in something about the ball not being on grass and possibly relating it specifically to the club if you want to exclude some sort of crazy footprint on a very wet day situation, but I think the definition is workable).

The local rule explanation says "For purposes of this Local Rule, “fairway” means any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less." I'm copying and pasting from here: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/golfs-new-rules-stroke-and-distance.html. It can be argued that it isn't a good definition (its clearly circular, much like the definition of putting green which is the surface specifically prepared for putting - I'm paraphrasing but I think that's pretty close), and it is not found in the definitions section of the rules of golf, but if saying what a word "means" isn't a definition of the word, then the rules of golf aren't the only thing misunderstood in this thread. To be clear, I understand fairway is not currently defined in the Rules of Golf; this would be an addition. I thought it was raised by some arguing against changing the rule that the inability to sufficiently define fairway was one of many reasons a divot relief rule wouldn't work, which is why I included it. I agree that defining "divot" is more difficult, if that's what you're saying. I agree that people take relief from animal holes far, far less often than their ball ends up in a divot. I do not know what that has to do with the definitions I suggested. I don't think you're saying the frequency with which the condition comes into play impacts the clarity we require of the definition, but I think I'm missing what you're putting down here. Sorry, new to the quoting function. I was responding to this. Nice website, btw.

When the first round is in play, are there really any rules beyond it pays to be a winner?

I'm not buying the arguments about not being able to define what we need to to make a new rule work. Consider for example: -In explaining 2019 local rule E-5 (alternative to stroke and distance), the USGA defines fairway as "any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less." I have trouble believing there would be much struggle to figure out where the fairway is based on that definition, which the USGA has already deemed good enough for local rule purposes. - The Rules define an animal hole as including "any area on the ground pushed up or altered as a result of the animal digging the hole underground." Replace "the animal digging the hole underground" with "a golfer's club impacting the ground during a stroke or practice swing," and that's probably close enough for everyone to understand what a divot is. As the USGA seems to contemplate the fairway is "an area of grass" (see above), you could also probably just say non-grass area surrounded by fairway for the purposes of the rule being debated here (this would obviously capture conditions beyond just divots). If the rule shouldn't be changed because play it as it lies, fair enough. But we don't need to pretend like the Rules of Golf or relevant governing bodies do (or can) define every situation such that there could be no debate.

$35 in Nebraska.

I actually had to google it. Apparently the e-word is more common but they mean the same. I went with what the rules of golf use.

I think it was 10. As Faldo put it, "I've never seen a ball embed after a bounce."

I mind. When I'm a single, I try hard to find times of day that give me the best chance of staying a single. I try not to let on at all that I mind in the inevitable event that I do get paired, though.

I'm a lawyer who works for a judge and a former Navy pilot.