Nonconforming Hole Liners

I'm reading Decision 16/4 which suggests that a hole liner which isn't deep enough should be reported to the Committee, but players should continue to play in the meantime because fixing it might take too much time or not be possible.

Our course is using plastic ring inserts that apparently cover the inch of the top of the inside of the hole the rest of the cup is supposed to be below. These rings are usually just even with the top of the hole but too often they stick up a hair, or when flush will still catch a ball and spin it around and out of the hole, which is a joke.

This is really annoying. The decisions don't seem to address the situation where fixing the problem is easily managed by the player, i.e., simply taking the ring out and putting it back in after putting. The only option seems to be reporting the issue (nobody is ever coming out from the clubhouse or shed to look at it while we are playing).

Assuming the course doesn't choose to be vigilant about setting the holes, is there any opportunity for self help? Also, soil is not an issue.

This is what can happen. In Q-school in this case. Unreal...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGUMuEamZPk

The liners that you are referring to make the hole smaller and thus non-conforming to the Rules. The club should cease using them.

[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1402456876' post='9471137']
The liners that you are referring to make the hole smaller and thus non-conforming to the Rules. The club should cease using them.
[/quote]

Actually they are improper simply by being less than an inch from the top of the inside of the hole. I don't disagree, but given the course won't cease, the question becomes whether the player has any options beyond reporting a condition that is guaranteed not to be addressed on the spot.

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1402457616' post='9471239']
[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1402456876' post='9471137']
The liners that you are referring to make the hole smaller and thus non-conforming to the Rules. The club should cease using them.
[/quote]

Actually they are improper simply by being less than an inch from the top of the inside of the hole. I don't disagree, but given the course won't cease, the question becomes whether the player has any options beyond reporting a condition that is guaranteed not to be addressed on the spot.
[/quote]

Removing them yourself would be touching the line of putt (it includes the hole) for a purpose not listed in Rule 16-1a and thus be a breach of that Rule (unless you could convince someone they were movable obstructions).

On tour, they paint the top of the hole for visibility. The course is trying to mimic that by using the white rings. Talk to the head pro/membership director/director of golf.

[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1402458124' post='9471289']
[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1402457616' post='9471239']
[quote name='rogolf' timestamp='1402456876' post='9471137']
The liners that you are referring to make the hole smaller and thus non-conforming to the Rules. The club should cease using them.
[/quote]

Actually they are improper simply by being less than an inch from the top of the inside of the hole. I don't disagree, but given the course won't cease, the question becomes whether the player has any options beyond reporting a condition that is guaranteed not to be addressed on the spot.
[/quote]

Removing them yourself would be touching the line of putt (it includes the hole) for a purpose not listed in Rule 16-1a and thus be a breach of that Rule (unless you could convince someone they were movable obstructions).
[/quote]

They seem to meet the definition of movable obstructions, being artificial and movable.

Is it reported for Committee action to avoid players screwing up the liner for subsequent players?

Surely the course management wants their course to conform to USGA Rules? By using these liners above the normal liner, the holes are below the 4 1/4 inch diameter.

Any hole 4 inches deep, with a liner, will have a diameter inside the liner less than 4 1/4 inches, so I think the issue is the sacred one inch above the liner, which is certainly violated with these removable rings. Again, the course will keep using them. I'm just trying to figure out if there is anything that gives the player an option merely beyond notifying the "Committee" which either doesn't exist or can't address the situation when the ring is likely to interfere. Tough nut to crack.

While I agree of course with Rogolf that removing the liner would be touching the line of your putt outwith the list of exempted actions, how about turning (perhaps somewhat "creatively") to Decision 16-1a/6 and argue that the hole has been damaged to the extent that the dimensions are materially altered, no member of the Committee is available to deal with the matter and the player can therefore "repair" the damage without penalty by removing the ring. Having thus repaired the hole by restoring it to its proper dimensions, he would not of course replace the ring. Being a tidy sort of person, he would not leave the ring lying around but would take it home and bin it. In fact, being a methodical sort of person, and wanting to leave the course for others as he would hope to find it, he would end up taking 18 of them home to bin.

[This is not an entirely facetious answer]

I would go one step short of Colin's civil disobedience. Since the course obviously does not have a committee interested in enforcing the rules, declare yourselves to be your own committee. The rings are not part of a legal hole and are movable so declare them movable obstructions and move them when you remove the flagstick.

[quote name='Colin L' timestamp='1402467486' post='9471751']
While I agree of course with Rogolf that removing the liner would be touching the line of your putt outwith the list of exempted actions, how about turning (perhaps somewhat "creatively") to Decision 16-1a/6 and argue that the hole has been damaged to the extent that the dimensions are materially altered, no member of the Committee is available to deal with the matter and the player can therefore "repair" the damage without penalty by removing the ring. Having thus repaired the hole by restoring it to its proper dimensions, he would not of course replace the ring. Being a tidy sort of person, he would not leave the ring lying around but would take it home and bin it. In fact, being a methodical sort of person, and wanting to leave the course for others as he would hope to find it, he would end up taking 18 of them home to bin.

[This is not an entirely facetious answer]
[/quote]

Unfortunately I would probably be the prime suspect. ;-)

I like creative approaches in this and other posts, and the food for thought in the self help area. It seems like one of those frustrating situations where the player may have to suffer the course's preference for plastic rings.

I found this, which is more for persuading the course.

http://www.oga.org/images/uploads/documents/rules/position_statements/Hole.pdf

You would think if the course is doing something on purpose that doesn't conform with the rules we would have some recourse.

I like the "damage" angle, maybe movable obstruction, but every time I fall in love with a rules solution, I find I'm on thin ice.

Enjoying the input, thanks.

If you tried addressing this with your course, and are getting nowhere, I would contact your state Golf Association and mention what your course is doing and include pictures and the above letter that other states are facing the same difficulty with these 'rings'.

A call from the state golf association telling them they're not conforming to the rules of golf will get that issue fixed rather quick. And yes, now the hole is more than likely less than the required 4 1/4". (Although I cannot believe that someone would be so ill-informed as to make a liner for the top of a hole that is less than 4 1/4". I would think maybe the cut hole is bigger than 4 1/4" and the liner itself conforms, just that people aren't used to it, or it's to remedy a soil problem, which then it's allowed? Maybe?) Nonetheless, a liner shouldn't start until an inch below the hole.

--kC

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1402506870' post='9474225']
I found this, which is more for persuading the course.

[url="http://www.oga.org/images/uploads/documents/rules/position_statements/Hole.pdf"]http://www.oga.org/i...ements/Hole.pdf[/url]

You would think if the course is doing something on purpose that doesn't conform with the rules we would have some recourse.

I like the "damage" angle, maybe movable obstruction, but every time I fall in love with a rules solution, I find I'm on thin ice.

Enjoying the input, thanks.
[/quote]

In addition to what has been said in that link above as well as in the Definition of 'Hole' I wish to add some clarification.

Any hole liner including a plastic ring is to be sunk at least the mentioned one (1) inch (= 2,54 cm) below the surface level. This is totally regardless of the thickness of such a liner. However, as the Definition says, if it is impracticable to sink the liner deep enough due to the nature of the soil, then even a liner close to the surface complies with the Rules. Such 'nature of the soil' could occur for example in newly built greens where the soil is too inconsistent (is that the correct term?) to maintain the shape of a hole. Thus a protective ring is allowed in such circumstances.

Things I wrote before have been confirmed to me personally by one Rules Director of R&A.

[quote name='Cwebb' timestamp='1402455258' post='9470969']
This is what can happen. In Q-school in this case. Unreal...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGUMuEamZPk
[/quote]
Wow, that sucks. Don't blame him for being pissed.

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1402506392' post='9474173']
[quote name='Colin L' timestamp='1402467486' post='9471751']
While I agree of course with Rogolf that removing the liner would be touching the line of your putt outwith the list of exempted actions, how about turning (perhaps somewhat "creatively") to Decision 16-1a/6 and argue that the hole has been damaged to the extent that the dimensions are materially altered, no member of the Committee is available to deal with the matter and the player can therefore "repair" the damage without penalty by removing the ring. Having thus repaired the hole by restoring it to its proper dimensions, he would not of course replace the ring. Being a tidy sort of person, he would not leave the ring lying around but would take it home and bin it. In fact, being a methodical sort of person, and wanting to leave the course for others as he would hope to find it, he would end up taking 18 of them home to bin.

[This is not an entirely facetious answer]
[/quote]

Unfortunately I would probably be the prime suspect. ;-)

I like creative approaches in this and other posts, and the food for thought in the self help area. It seems like one of those frustrating situations where the player may have to suffer the course's preference for plastic rings.
[/quote] As for being the prime suspect, when you get done, thank the pro for finally having the liners removed. When he seems confused, just tell him that they were not there when you played today. That should take suspicion away from you.

The course in question wouldn't happen to be run by Billy Casper Golf, would it? They took over two courses in my area and put those stupid liners in so they wouldn't have to change pins but every so often. I used to pull them out, and even wrote on one "PUT BELOW SURFACE", as many of them would creep up above the surface of the green.

No surprise, the greens are in terrible shape.

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1402454692' post='9470897']


This is really annoying. ....
[/quote]

First world problems ...

... and ...

Get off my lawn!

Play somewhere else. Is their a reason you feel forced to play there?

[quote name='Truman' timestamp='1402617844' post='9483793']
Play somewhere else. Is their a reason you feel forced to play there?
[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing, but then again I am blessed to have a ton of courses within 10 miles of my house in the Kansas City area. The OP may not have this.

Not changing courses,

I used to be a member at a course that used these plastic liners that covered the top inch or so of the hole, and were supposed to be just below the edge of the turf. Supposedly they started using them so the rim of the hole would not get damaged or something. Even though hole locations were changed daily and the course didn't get a ton of play. Personally, I hated them. They seemed to reduce the diameter of the hole at the top (the plastic was fairly thick - maybe 1/8" of an inch) and I felt the plastic tended to kick-back chip-ins and putts hit hard instead of letting them drop down. The resident rules guru felt they were non-conforming but the clowns on the greens committee let them remain.

I recently questioned the adoption of these white plastic ring,s or "targets" as I've heard them called, at a public course I play.

I was told that the hole liner itself is the required 1" below the surface of the green, and is thus conforming. The plastic ring /white target is in fact a separate piece -- a replacement for white paint, and since it is kept below the surface of the green it's not a problem. In fact, it's my observation that the grass modestly covers the edge of the ring when viewed from above, and perhaps the hole actually remains 4 1/4 inches in diameter along the interior of the ring. (What are the tolerances for this "4 1/4" inch hole anyway?)

In fairness, I suppose the white paint used in upscale applications also has some minor "thickness" to it, yet it's not therefore considered nonconforming, right?

Practically speaking, the plastic does more to preserve the true dimensions of the hole than it changes them. A few careless golfers (or even just one who lifts his ball out of the cup by using his putter) widens the hole considerably.

Is this truly conforming? I don't know, but it's possible that it's a very practical solution.

Comments?

A liner must be 1" below the rim of the hole. The ring is a liner whether or not there is another liner lower down.
Also, if the ring is 4 1/4 inches in diameter internally it must be more than that externally, which breaches the Definition.
A liner is an [i]object[/i] used to line the hole. Paint is not an object and is not explicitly forbidden in the Definition.
If the solution is non-conforming, it has no practicality at all because it isn't allowed.

Demolished?

[quote name='Hawkeye77' timestamp='1402454692' post='9470897']

... Assuming the course doesn't choose to be vigilant about setting the holes, is there any opportunity for self help?
[/quote]

Help yourself by patronizing better courses.

[quote name='Colin L' timestamp='1403590009' post='9564213']
. . . Paint is not an object . . .

Demolished?
[/quote]

Merriam-Webster tells me that an object is "a thing that you can see and touch and that is not alive" and "[color=#000000][size=3]something material that may be perceived by the senses."[/size][/color]
Is a thin film of plastic wrap an object? I'd say it most certainly is. Is dried paint an object? How can it not be?

Dismayed?

(In any case, I'd suppose that your true objection to the legality of this does not rest upon whether or not paint is an object.)

But moving past this I'll also add that if the outer diameter of the collar is 4 1/2 inches, the inner diameter is only slightly smaller. As we are only talking fractions of a millimeter in thickness here, let's acknowledge that paint itself has some minor thickness. (I guess you're saying one is an acceptable variation from 4 1/2 inches, the other is not. That could certainly be true.)

Nevertheless, the definition of a hole describes a "lining" not a "liner." While one might make an argument that a "liner" is something specific, perhaps including the bottom of the cup and the pin's hole (and therefore perhaps distinct from a "collar"), I don't think it possible to make a valid argument that this new type of collar is not a "lining" because it most certainly is that. But I'd still contend that paint itself is a lining!

I'm told that the white paint that is sometimes used to brighten the top edge of the hole is latex. Dried latex paint may be slightly different than this collar "plastic," but is it so substantially different that one is a legal lining and one is not? Perhaps . . . and I'd suppose that it in fact may be illegal . . . but it is still a rather modest distinction in my mind.

I suppose that these new collars are a poor man's paint. And I suppose they do a far better job of preserving the top of the hole than is true for paint or for no material there at all. All of which makes me wonder if all this should be considered by the Ruling Bodies. In fact, I think I'll ask mine what they think.

The problem with the liners are many, one being courses don't change the cups nearly often enough when using them. Then what happens is that the hole develops an "ant hill" type slope to it as people walk around the hole day after day, and the liner ends up being pushed above the surface of the green.

Change the cups every day and there's no problem in 'preserving' the top of the hole. Oh, and your green will thank you as well.

This is going to be a tough one to handle in English, so I’ll try to be concise.

[i]Paint is not a liner. [/i]

That’s it. How is that for being concise?

Seriously Sawgrass: I won’t challenge your remark about paint being an object and I won’t say your arguments are not true. I just disagree with taking that concept as literally as you seem to be doing, if I understand you correctly. I just think that you’re somehow pulling the string just a little bit too much.

You mentioned latex, as some “film” that would be a liner (or lining). I suggest we leave latex out, since the painting used for marking a golf course should be an eco friendly, water based painting.

My interpretation is that when you paint “something” you have a colored “something”. When you paint the soil inside the hole, you still have the same soil (only painted), but if you place a plastic ring inside… it feels to me as a different situation: it’s an independent plastic object that I would not compare with a layer of paint. You can’t take the painting on and off, the painting won’t change the interaction between the edge of the hole and the ball, but the plastic ring is removable and the ball [b][i][u]could[/u][/i][/b] behave differently when striking the painted soil or the plastic ring, either after a putt with a little “extra” strength or bouncing on the edge after a shot from outside the green.

Again: I won’t say your arguments are not true, but I believe that a plastic ring and a layer of water based painting are two very different things. I can’t see paint as a liner, while I can’t see the plastic ring as anything else. Try to look at it this way: I would never place a stripe of latex or plastic yellow tape to mark a water hazard (something like a “crime scene” tape if you think that the ball drowned in the lake LOL), but I’ve painted lines many times…

Just how I see it, not that I know

Have a good day gentlemen!