So really...re: divots...

[spartan6910]

Really, why aren't you allowed relief from divots? They are, under most normal playing circumstances, the purest example of a man-made obstacle any of us will ever encounter. Whether they are filled or not, they are an unnatural part of the course. The protocol for relief doesn't even seem to be at all difficult to implement - place the ball 6-12 inches behind the divot you're in. It takes no time at all and allows players a fair lie at all times. It just boggles my mind that in 2019 we still make players (particularly tournament players) take shots out of divots. What am I missing?

[davep043]

> @spartan6910 said:

> Really, why aren't you allowed relief from divots? They are, under most normal playing circumstances, the purest example of a man-made obstacle any of us will ever encounter. Whether they are filled or not, they are an unnatural part of the course. The protocol for relief doesn't even seem to be at all difficult to implement - place the ball 6-12 inches behind the divot you're in. It takes no time at all and allows players a fair lie at all times. It just boggles my mind that in 2019 we still make players (particularly tournament players) take shots out of divots. What am I missing?

 

Nobody ever said that golf is fair. You don't deserve a perfect lie just because you've hit a shot into the fairway. Besides, its nearly impossible to define a divot hole effectively, or to define when it is grown in enough that you don't get relief.

Of course, this issue has been discussed in dozens of other threads, you won't learn anything with this new one that you couldn't have learned by searching through old threads.

 

[spartan6910]

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.

[Sawgrass]

What you’re “missing” is the fun of playing the course as you find it.

 

And while some divot holes are obvious, you’re kidding yourself if you think people won’t disagree as to when other partially-recovered depressions qualify.

 

It’s pretty obvious that this issue has been litigated for decades. Just relax and do your best.

[Mr. Bean]

I am with Dave here and totally support his explanation of defining a divot hole. The factor of luck goes with golf, no doubt about it, and it sure feels unfair once your great drive ends up in a divot hole. But then again, golf is played under various circumstances and a divot hole is just one of many.

 

Spartan, just accept this as one of the many features of golf. In the long run luck tends to even up.

[SNIPERBBB]

Common sense... people keep using that phrase but I don't think it means what you think it means. Take your shot.

[SNIPERBBB]

As far as man made. Most modern day golf courses are made by explosives, bull dozers and backhoes. Most bunkers, ponds and lakes in unglaciated land are man made.

[caniac6]

I play almost every day, and am very rarely in a divot. I don't like it when I am in one, but I deal with it. Unless the rules change, I suggest you do the same.

[ThinkingPlus]

This just seems like one of those "suck it up buttercup" moments.

[Newby]

> @spartan6910 said:

> Really, why aren't you allowed relief from divots?

From the R&A and USGA

**Certain Topics or Proposals Not Addressed in the Proposed New Rules of Golf for 2019

Introduction**

The Rules Modernisation Initiative has been comprehensive in scope. Every one of the game’s 34 Rules has been reviewed, including a careful assessment of the historical evolution and current effectiveness of each Rule. In doing so, we have been guided by a central theme for this fundamental review: even far-reaching Rule changes should be open for discussion, but golf’s essential principles and character must be preserved.

The new Rules that we are proposing reflect a large number of changes, many of which arise out of suggestions that have been voiced by people in the golf community over the years. However, it is also necessarily the case that there are a significant number of suggestions for change that we have noted, but decided not to include in the proposed new Rules. We categorise and list below some of these ideas that we have not adopted.

**2. Preserving the Fundamental Challenge of the Game**

 Play the ball as it lies –

In its simplest form, golf is about playing the ball from tee to green by hitting it with a golf club, and not otherwise touching the ball. A fundamental challenge of the sport is to deal with whatever position your ball comes to rest in – whether good or bad. While there are some necessary exceptions (such as obstructions and other abnormal course conditions), the essential nature of golf means these must remain exceptions rather than the norm. Therefore, the new Rules do not provide relief without penalty from situations that some golfers complain about, _such as when their ball comes to rest in a divot hole on a fairway or in footprints in a poorly raked bunker._

In addition to being contrary to the fundamental principle of playing the ball as it lies, providing free relief in such circumstances would make the Rules harder to apply (for example, what is the difference between an irregularity of surface and an old divot hole?) and would slow down play.

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @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.

 

You of course are 100% correct. It is easy to define the divot you describe. The hole created by a swing either was not sanded or replaced it is a divot.

 

Now the hard part for you to define. When is it no longer a divot?

[Newby]

> @spartan6910 said:

> It just boggles my mind that in 2019 we still make players (particularly tournament players) take shots out of divots. What am I missing?

Probably that the pros have no issues with playing out of divot holes. They do it all the time. Have you ever seen the areas from which they hit their approach shots towards the end of a round. Their (non) secret is of course that they practice.

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @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.

>

> You of course are 100% correct. It is easy to define the divot you describe. The hole created by a swing either was not sanded or replaced it is a divot.

>

> Now the hard part for you to define. When is it no longer a divot?

 

(sarcasm alert)

When I say so. What was so hard about that?

[Mr. Bean]

> @spartan6910 said:

> Really, why aren't you allowed relief from divots? They are, under most normal playing circumstances, the purest example of a man-made obstacle any of us will ever encounter. Whether they are filled or not, they are an unnatural part of the course. The protocol for relief doesn't even seem to be at all difficult to implement - place the ball 6-12 inches behind the divot you're in. It takes no time at all and allows players a fair lie at all times. It just boggles my mind that in 2019 we still make players (particularly tournament players) take shots out of divots. **What am I missing?**

 

Skills..?

[Shilgy]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > You of course are 100% correct. It is easy to define the divot you describe. The hole created by a swing either was not sanded or replaced it is a divot.

> >

> > Now the hard part for you to define. When is it no longer a divot?

>

> (sarcasm alert)

> When I say so. What was so hard about that?

 

(Sarcastic response)

But you're all about "fair". One group would have a different definition than another.

 

Bottom line... Golf is not a fair game. And it's not intended to be. Golf is a test which you are failing.

[Lodestone]

> @Sawgrass said:

> What you’re “missing” is the fun of playing the course as you find it.

>

> And while some divot holes are obvious, you’re kidding yourself if you think people won’t disagree as to when other partially-recovered depressions qualify.

>

> It’s pretty obvious that this issue has been litigated for decades. Just relax and do your best.

 

Relax, do your best AND...hit down on it.

[kmay__]

Can be frustrating sure to hit a nice shot and end up in a divot, but I just see it as good practice for hitting from a bare lie, which happens all the time for us who play mainly munis. Plus how much more satisfying is it to hit a good shot from a bad lie? Feels great to pull it off and if ya dont? ....well free excuse and we love those.

[Hawkeye77]

Nobody makes you.

 

Declare an unplayable lie if you can't hit the shot.

 

Not really a big deal, and part of the game. I agree - suck it up!

[Roadking2003]

> @spartan6910 said:

> Really, why aren't you allowed relief from divots? They are, under most normal playing circumstances, the purest example of a man-made obstacle any of us will ever encounter. Whether they are filled or not, they are an unnatural part of the course. The protocol for relief doesn't even seem to be at all difficult to implement - place the ball 6-12 inches behind the divot you're in. It takes no time at all and allows players a fair lie at all times. It just boggles my mind that in 2019 we still make players (particularly tournament players) take shots out of divots. What am I missing?

 

The only thing you are missing is that the ruling bodies refuse to do what is obviously the right solution.

[Roadking2003]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Nobody makes you.

>

> Declare an unplayable lie if you can't hit the shot.

>

> Not really a big deal, and part of the game. I agree - suck it up!

 

Just like a cart path. Why give free relief? Just suck it up.

[Roadking2003]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> I am with Dave here and totally support his explanation of defining a divot hole. **The factor of luck goes with golf, .....**

 

Unless luck has you on a cart path. Then luck is thrown out the window and you get free relief.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @Newby said:

> **2. Preserving the Fundamental Challenge of the Game**

>  Play the ball as it lies –

Sometimes. But sometimes not. It just depends on when the ruling bodies decide you must play the ball as it lies.

[Mr. Bean]

Apparently Roadking (once again) has severe difficulties in understanding the ideas behind the Rules when he compares a paved road with a divot hole. Honestly! Golf ball is meant to be struck from top of natural materials, not from concrete or similar.

[Roadking2003]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> Apparently Roadking (once again) has severe difficulties in understanding the ideas behind the Rules when he compares a paved road with a divot hole. Honestly! Golf ball is meant to be struck from top of natural materials, not from concrete or similar.

 

Apparently, Mr. Bean (once again) has severe difficulties in understanding the fact that a divot is man-made and not natural.

 

And BTW, there are several other situations where the golfer gets free relief from totally natural conditions such as casual water. So the "natural" vs "man-made" argument is bunk.

 

[bladehunter]

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.

[Roadking2003]

> @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.

[Golfer4Life]

Simple, move the ball if it bothers you that much. Declare an unplayable, from the fairway, and move on.

Don't forget the penalty stroke!

[Sawgrass]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > Apparently Roadking (once again) has severe difficulties in understanding the ideas behind the Rules when he compares a paved road with a divot hole. Honestly! Golf ball is meant to be struck from top of natural materials, not from concrete or similar.

>

> Apparently, Mr. Bean (once again) has severe difficulties in understanding the fact that a divot is man-made and not natural.

>

> And BTW, there are several other situations where the golfer gets free relief from totally natural conditions such as casual water. So the "natural" vs "man-made" argument is bunk.

>

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.

 

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.

 

[Colin L]

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.

[rogolf]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > Apparently Roadking (once again) has severe difficulties in understanding the ideas behind the Rules when he compares a paved road with a divot hole. Honestly! Golf ball is meant to be struck from top of natural materials, not from concrete or similar.

> >

> > Apparently, Mr. Bean (once again) has severe difficulties in understanding the fact that a divot is man-made and not natural.

> >

> > And BTW, there are several other situations where the golfer gets free relief from totally natural conditions such as casual water. So the "natural" vs "man-made" argument is bunk.

> >

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

 

Rumor has it that the time spent on discussion of divot holes by the ruling bodies was shorter than the time between the light turning green and the guy behind you honking. :)