So really...re: divots...

[Roadking2003]

> @"Colin L" said:

> You obviously haven't read the Definition of an obstruction. A tarmac path is an artificial object and therefore an obstruction. A divot hole is not an artificial object and is not an obstruction. Indeed, to be a smartass about it, a divot hole isn't anything - it's an absence of something and your ball is lying on the ground.

 

I've actually read all of the rules of golf.

The definition of obstruction is what the ruling bodies have decided it should be. I get that. But they also could have chosen another dozen definitions.

And to be another smartass about it using your logic, the hole isn't anything. It's the absence of something.

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > You obviously haven't read the Definition of an obstruction. A tarmac path is an artificial object and therefore an obstruction. A divot hole is not an artificial object and is not an obstruction. Indeed, to be a smartass about it, a divot hole isn't anything - it's an absence of something and your ball is lying on the ground.

>

> I've actually read all of the rules of golf.

 

We all wish you would have also understood them.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @Sawgrass said:

> One does not have to "understand" your perspective on this -- **you have no authority.** On the other hand, it might be useful to understand the Ruling Bodies view, which Newby ably noted.

 

Just like 99.9% or more of the posters on this board. I never claimed authority.

 

> Call it bunk if it makes you feel better, but recognize that your view has been considered and rejected. You'll have to find a way to deal with it if you choose to play by the rules.

>

I deal with it so no need to find anything.

 

If we had to "play it as it lies" on cart paths I would deal with that too.

If we had to "play it as it lies" on the green I would deal with that too.

If we had to "play it as it lies" in casual water I would deal with that too.

If we had to "play it as it lies" on a sprinkler head I would deal with that too.

 

My point is that there is nothing logical about the ruling bodies choice of when we get relief. They are the rulers so they get to decide.

 

There is nothing inherently right or wrong about choosing which conditions get relief. They could choose to let us clean our ball on the fairway and not the green, etc.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @Roadking2003 said:

 

> There is nothing inherently right or wrong about choosing which conditions get relief.

>

>

 

 

In your post #19 you say, "The only thing you are missing is that the ruling bodies refuse to do what is obviously the right solution."

 

It seems you've made some progress in that you now acknowledge that there is no right or wrong -- therefore no RB refusal of a "right" solution. The RBs just don't choose to endorse YOUR solution. Look, lines must be drawn between what qualifies as a relief situation and what doesn't -- unless you don't want to grant relief from anything. What we have works, and creates some drama on occasion to boot.

 

 

 

[davep043]

I think a look at the history of golf, and its rules, makes it easy to understand the divot issue. Golf was played for a long time before the first rules were published. A large percentage of early golf sites were on sandy linksland. It was a simple game, Hit the ball until it goes in the hole. Then pick it out of the hole, and start over. Divots had to be commonplace, as were any number of surface imperfections, none of that was ever thought to be a valid reason to pick up and move your ball. Water was largely contained in watercourses, it didn't form puddles on the ground, and the sandy turf stayed firm. If there was a wall, or a road, it was probably there before the golf course was, so it wasn't cause for concern. Go play at the Old Course, you play off Granny Clark's Wynd. Play North Berwick, the walls crossing fairways are part of the course, no relief from them. Those things predate the rules, predate the golf course, so you have to accept them.

Then golf grew, spread into different areas, different soil conditions. Golf courses were purpose built. Still, for the most part you played the ball as it lay. In a different geology, rainwater sits on the surface. Its something new, related to new sites, so its treated as something different from what was historically acceptable, you get relief. Then came paved roads, something added to an existing golf course, something "unnatural", so you get relief from that. Same thing with artificial irrigation, something new, something not ever considered before, so grounds for relief. But divot holes, they've ALWAYS been an accepted part of the game. Divot holes are a natural and accepted part of golf, they predate all golf rules, its unlikely they'll ever become a basis for relief.

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> I think a look at the history of golf, and its rules, makes it easy to understand the divot issue. Golf was played for a long time before the first rules were published. A large percentage of early golf sites were on sandy linksland. It was a simple game, Hit the ball until it goes in the hole. Then pick it out of the hole, and start over. Divots had to be commonplace, as were any number of surface imperfections, none of that was ever thought to be a valid reason to pick up and move your ball. Water was largely contained in watercourses, it didn't form puddles on the ground, and the sandy turf stayed firm. If there was a wall, or a road, it was probably there before the golf course was, so it wasn't cause for concern. Go play at the Old Course, you play off Granny Clark's Wynd. Play North Berwick, the walls crossing fairways are part of the course, no relief from them. Those things predate the rules, predate the golf course, so you have to accept them.

> Then golf grew, spread into different areas, different soil conditions. Golf courses were purpose built. Still, for the most part you played the ball as it lay. In a different geology, rainwater sits on the surface. Its something new, related to new sites, so its treated as something different from what was historically acceptable, you get relief. Then came paved roads, something added to an existing golf course, something "unnatural", so you get relief from that. Same thing with artificial irrigation, something new, something not ever considered before, so grounds for relief. But divot holes, they've ALWAYS been an accepted part of the game. Divot holes are a natural and accepted part of golf, they predate all golf rules, its unlikely they'll ever become a basis for relief.

 

I agree with everything you posted except for "Divot holes are a natural and accepted part of golf". They are not natural and are not accepted by millions of golfers. Even Jack Nicklaus thinks we should get relief from sand filled divots.

The same can be said ("they have been with us from the beginning") of pitch marks and yet we get to repair them. Pitch marks are not new.

The same can be said ("they have been with us from the beginning") of mud and grass stains on the ball and yet we get to clean balls on the green. Mud and grass are not new.

[davep043]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > I think a look at the history of golf, and its rules, makes it easy to understand the divot issue. Golf was played for a long time before the first rules were published. A large percentage of early golf sites were on sandy linksland. It was a simple game, Hit the ball until it goes in the hole. Then pick it out of the hole, and start over. Divots had to be commonplace, as were any number of surface imperfections, none of that was ever thought to be a valid reason to pick up and move your ball. Water was largely contained in watercourses, it didn't form puddles on the ground, and the sandy turf stayed firm. If there was a wall, or a road, it was probably there before the golf course was, so it wasn't cause for concern. Go play at the Old Course, you play off Granny Clark's Wynd. Play North Berwick, the walls crossing fairways are part of the course, no relief from them. Those things predate the rules, predate the golf course, so you have to accept them.

> > Then golf grew, spread into different areas, different soil conditions. Golf courses were purpose built. Still, for the most part you played the ball as it lay. In a different geology, rainwater sits on the surface. Its something new, related to new sites, so its treated as something different from what was historically acceptable, you get relief. Then came paved roads, something added to an existing golf course, something "unnatural", so you get relief from that. Same thing with artificial irrigation, something new, something not ever considered before, so grounds for relief. But divot holes, they've ALWAYS been an accepted part of the game. Divot holes are a natural and accepted part of golf, they predate all golf rules, its unlikely they'll ever become a basis for relief.

>

> I agree with everything you posted except for "Divot holes are a natural and accepted part of golf". They are not natural and are not accepted by millions of golfers. Even Jack Nicklaus thinks we should get relief from sand filled divots.

> The same can be said ("they have been with us from the beginning") of pitch marks and yet we get to repair them. Pitch marks are not new.

> The same can be said ("they have been with us from the beginning") of mud and grass stains on the ball and yet we get to clean balls on the green. Mud and grass are not new.

 

You're right about pitch marks, and about cleaning the ball. These rule changes came about in about 1960, when maintenance procedures improved to the point where golfers started to reasonably expect extremely good conditions on the greens. These rules changed because of outside changes, just as rules about obstructions were a response to changes in golf courses. Not a single thing has changed in regards to divot holes, so there's no reason to change the rules surrounding divot holes.

[Roadking2003]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > You obviously haven't read the Definition of an obstruction. A tarmac path is an artificial object and therefore an obstruction. A divot hole is not an artificial object and is not an obstruction. Indeed, to be a smartass about it, a divot hole isn't anything - it's an absence of something and your ball is lying on the ground.

> >

> > I've actually read all of the rules of golf.

>

> We all wish you would have also understood them.

>

>

And we all wish you understood the English language.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

When does a divot stop being a divot that you deserve relief? Who is going to be the arbiter of such decisions?

[dlygrisse]

OP should quit playing golf and spend more time in a simulator. Every lie is level and perfect.

[SNIPERBBB]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> When does a divot stop being a divot that you deserve relief? Who is going to be the arbiter of such decisions?

 

They just want to tilt at the divot windmill, not at the when-its-not-a-divot windmill.

[Golfer4Life]

Some of you are really ignorant. Can you disagree without been disrespectful? I do miss that ignore list function.

[Sawgrass]

> @Golfer4Life said:

> Some of you are really ignorant. Can you disagree without been disrespectful? I do miss that ignore list function.

 

Irony?

[Golfer4Life]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Golfer4Life said:

> > Some of you are really ignorant. Can you disagree without been disrespectful? I do miss that ignore list function.

>

> Irony?

 

If the shoe fits wear it!

 

 

[dubbelbogey]

I predict that this ruling will, ultimately, change, too. They've just recently allowed fixing spike marks on the green, and to me, this would be a similar thing (certainly the arguments against the change are nearly indentical). Does it make a real difference for most rounds? Of course not, but it irks the majority of golfers out there who do end up in a divot and it seems the current trend is to make the game friendlier, whether it makes a substantive difference or not. I give the over/under on this changing at 7 years.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @dubbelbogey said:

> I predict that this ruling will, ultimately, change, too. They've just recently allowed fixing spike marks on the green, and to me, this would be a similar thing (certainly the arguments against the change are nearly indentical). Does it make a real difference for most rounds? Of course not, but it irks the majority of golfers out there who do end up in a divot and it seems the current trend is to make the game friendlier, whether it makes a substantive difference or not. I give the over/under on this changing at 7 years.

 

Friendly games can be modified as the group wants. They could say lift, clean and place and that would care for divots. Your group could say you get one free divot relief. Yeah I get that the latter isn't part of the rules but if your group uses that then no harm.

 

The whole problem is when does a divot stop being a divot? Some guys would use it to fluff the ball often by claiming a small brown imperfection was a divot.

[nsxguy]

> @Golfer4Life said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > Some of you are really ignorant. Can you disagree without been disrespectful? I do miss that ignore list function.

> >

> > Irony?

>

> If the shoe fits wear it!

>

>

 

Just for that I'm not going to tell you how to ignore somebody. LMAO

[nsxguy]

> @spartan6910 said:

> I absolutely disagree that it's hard to define. If it's not grass, and it looks like a divot, it's a divot. Not that hard. This is where golf overcomplicates things to the point of frustration. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. I'm not asking for driving range mat-type lies but a divot is absolutely different than say a depression in the ground. One is natural, one is not. Not that hard. If you can get relief from a sprinkler, which is not a natural part of the playing surface, you should also be allowed relief from a divot, which is also not a natural part of the playing surface.** Common sense is sorely lacking in golf IMO**.

> Thanks for being the search function police, as well.

 

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > If we stop playing the ball down. The game is lost.

> >

> > Just learn how to hit the shot. People want to shortcut the process. Can’t. Learn how to hit it. It’s not that hard.

>

> It's also not hard to hit off a cart path. I've done it many times. Also casual water. It's not that hard.

 

True story. Unless I can get a perfect lie from a cartpath. I prefer to hit it off one. You can control that shot much easier than one from deep rough. And I’d sacrifice a club in a second for another birdie. ( or par save ).

[Tocgolfer]

??

[Vindog]

Divots unnatural? They are as natural as the course itself. You are never guaranteed a great lie, even if you hit a good shot.

 

Golf is life.

[Roadking2003]

> @dubbelbogey said:

> I predict that this ruling will, ultimately, change, too. They've just recently allowed fixing spike marks on the green, and to me, this would be a similar thing (certainly the arguments against the change are nearly indentical). Does it make a real difference for most rounds? Of course not, but it irks the majority of golfers out there who do end up in a divot and it seems the current trend is to make the game friendlier, whether it makes a substantive difference or not. I give the over/under on this changing at 7 years.

 

Good point. There are two obvious inconsistencies in this area.

1. Mud on the ball: clean it if on the green. You are SOL if not on the green. You could be one inch off the green with a ball covered with mud and a ten-foot birdie putt. Silly rule. Either play it as it lies or not.

2. Relief from unnatural holes: Fix them if on the green. If not, you are SOL. Silly rule. Either play it as it lies or not.

[Roadking2003]

> @Vindog said:

> Divots unnatural? They are as natural as the course itself. You are never guaranteed a great lie, even if you hit a good shot.

>

> Golf is life.

 

So why repair pitch marks and spike marks on the green. They are just as natural as the course itself. You are never guaranteed a great lie, even if you are on the green.

Golf is life.

[Roadking2003]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:>

> The whole problem is when does a divot stop being a divot?

Whenever you say it stops. I've played lots of bunkers where the boundary was very difficult to define.

[SNIPERBBB]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:>

> > The whole problem is when does a divot stop being a divot?

> Whenever you say it stops. I've played lots of bunkers where the boundary was very difficult to define.

 

There is a very simple test as to whether a ball is in a bunker or not.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:>

> > The whole problem is when does a divot stop being a divot?

> Whenever you say it stops. I've played lots of bunkers where the boundary was very difficult to define.

 

So let me make sure I understand, you'd be OK leaving it the hands of the individual to determine if it's a divot every time? Don't you think some guys would exploit that and use it to fluff the ball anytime the surface had even the slightest discoloration?

[bladehunter]

Let me ask this . How many who’d love to see relief from divots are actually playing the ball down every round ? Be honest.

 

In casual rounds ball in hand is generally the first thing someone negotiates for. I don’t practice that way , but with certain players you almost have to give that t get them to play any sort of game.

 

My point. If you aren’t playing it down always anyway , why do you care ? I think some just want to be justified in moving it.

[Mr. Bean]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:>

> > > The whole problem is when does a divot stop being a divot?

> > Whenever you say it stops. I've played lots of bunkers where the boundary was very difficult to define.

>

> There is a very simple test as to whether a ball is in a bunker or not.

 

I have to disagree with that. I have seen many many bunkers where the margin is impossible to determine because of maintenance staff driving their machines into the bunker leaving a sandy trail with no margin whatsoever.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Vindog said:

> > Divots unnatural? They are as natural as the course itself. You are never guaranteed a great lie, even if you hit a good shot.

> >

> > Golf is life.

>

> So why repair pitch marks and spike marks on the green. They are just as natural as the course itself. You are never guaranteed a great lie, even if you are on the green.

> Golf is life.

 

This is like banging one's head against a concrete wall but I'll write this anyway.

 

Rolling a ball on the green is very different from making a ball airborne as air has no undulations nor damages. I think it was Dave who explained why pitch marks on the green are nowadays allowed to be repaired. It would do you some good if you tried to understand the way things are instead of whining about unfairness you believe you are encountering.

 

Or you can always stop playing golf as it seems to create such huge frustrations in you. Or learn how to make a stroke from a divot hole...

[SNIPERBBB]

Unless the bunkers are the same size of the machines, you should be able to figure out the margin.