So really...re: divots...

[Hawkeye77]

> @hornet67 said:

> i am absolutely not a rules expert, but my two cents on the issue comes down to 2 things playing the course as you found it and normal damage or wear of the course during play. on item one when did i "find" the course conditions, was it the first day of the tournament, or when i stepped on the first tee (each round) or is it as i step on each individual tee.... meaning what are my expectations for the condition of the course, if it was on Thursday when the tournament began all divots (created during the tournament) would allow relief, if it is when you step on the first tee then only the divots created that day allow relief and if it is when you step on each tee through the round you are entitled to no relief from divots. Several examples have been given, so how about when the hole itself is damaged in normal play, say you fly your 6 iron into the hole from 175 and it destroys the lip of the cup we don't continue with the cup damaged, it is repaired and placed back to near as possible original condition. i abide by the rules so i don't take relief from divots but i do think it is inconsistent with other rules that allow relief from ground under repair. what better description could there be for a replaced divot than ground needing repair. i think that tournament golf should be such that every golfer plays the same course but, we all know this is impossible because of wind, time of day, etc etc but i think relief from divots provides equity between the first player teeing of in a 140 man field with no divots and the last player playing with all the damage in front of him.

 

Will you have special day of the week tournament issue spray paint to mark those spots?

 

Not the silliest thing I’ve read in here, but pretty close.

[Hawkeye77]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

 

 

Divulligan or Mullvot or Linner or Delores?

[Sawgrass]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

 

Just one? Or one a side?

I smell Mulligan.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

>

>

> Divulligan or Mullvot or Linner or Delores?

LOL classic Seinfeld.

 

 

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

>

> Just one? Or one a side?

> I smell Mulligan.

>

Just 1 per 18 and not a Mulligan as it would have to be a ball in the fairway and not a do-over.

 

Again I'm not advocating anything needs to be done about this but just offering a potential solution if we were forced to write something.

 

[hornet67]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @hornet67 said:

> > i am absolutely not a rules expert, but my two cents on the issue comes down to 2 things playing the course as you found it and normal damage or wear of the course during play. on item one when did i "find" the course conditions, was it the first day of the tournament, or when i stepped on the first tee (each round) or is it as i step on each individual tee.... meaning what are my expectations for the condition of the course, if it was on Thursday when the tournament began all divots (created during the tournament) would allow relief, if it is when you step on the first tee then only the divots created that day allow relief and if it is when you step on each tee through the round you are entitled to no relief from divots. Several examples have been given, so how about when the hole itself is damaged in normal play, say you fly your 6 iron into the hole from 175 and it destroys the lip of the cup we don't continue with the cup damaged, it is repaired and placed back to near as possible original condition. i abide by the rules so i don't take relief from divots but i do think it is inconsistent with other rules that allow relief from ground under repair. what better description could there be for a replaced divot than ground needing repair. i think that tournament golf should be such that every golfer plays the same course but, we all know this is impossible because of wind, time of day, etc etc but i think relief from divots provides equity between the first player teeing of in a 140 man field with no divots and the last player playing with all the damage in front of him.

>

> Will you have special day of the week tournament issue spray paint to mark those spots?

>

> Not the silliest thing I’ve read in here, but pretty close.

 

 

[HatsForBats]

> @davep043 said:

> Ball marks weren't defined. And its actually pretty easy to look up the rules from the past:

> http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2016.html

> There is about a 60 year history where players were allowed to repair damage in a very specific and limited part of the course. The earliest rules are 275 years old.

> But again, we've asked you to come up with your proposed solution. Can you? To quote you, "That shouldn't be too hard to answer."

 

I thought it was obvious. My proposed solution would be to leave a fairway divot undefined just like Ball Marks on greens were. Players seemed to be able to navigate that pretty easily in years past.

[HatsForBats]

> @Vindog said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @HatsForBats said:

> > > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > You claim its a statistical disadvantage, the actual statistics say otherwise. In the long run its statistically insignificant given the chances of it occurring are extremely low and when it does occur the actual long term impact on your scores is within the noise. At the end of the day what you score is all that matters, the scorecard doesn't have boxes for landing in a divot, getting 50 extra yards hitting the cartpath or a sprinkler head, hitting a tree that kicks the ball into the fairway, etc etc. Big tournaments span multiple days for a reason, to normalize "bad breaks".

> > > >

> > > > Ntot sure why keep talking about the long term impact. I have already agreed it is not significant. What I am stating is the short term impact is significant (ie. in the given moment). That's where it matters. As you say all that matters at the end of the day is what a player scored. If they end up in a divot is their score likely to be higher or lower than if they had played the exact same round but had not had a shot out of a divot? That's rhetorical because we all know they are more **likely** to have a higher score when having to play a shot out of a divot.

> > > >

> > > > You are kidding yourself to think that big tournaments span multiple days to normalize 'bad breaks'.

> > >

> > > So your score is 1 stroke higher 1 round out of 100+, are you playing big money games on the regular that typically come down to a single stroke? Your claim of 3 divots in 40 rounds is honestly really just bad luck and a statistical outlier. I have landed in 2 divots in the last 4 years, it's in the noise.

> >

> > It doesn't matter if it is 1 in 100, 200 or 300 rounds. It still happens enough to be an issue IMO. 1 in 300 would be an estimated 2 Million + times per year in the USA. It's in the noise until it happens to someone in a competition that means something to them. Whether that is a just for giggles competition, small stakes game, weekly league, club championship or high stakes game doesn't really matter.

>

> You have yet to show significant statistical disadvantage. There is a reason that I feel your math is skewed and its the same reason that batting averages are calculated per trip at the plate, rather than per game played. It would be okay just to state your opinion on the matter, but you're trying to be the smartest guy in the room and it's not working.

>

> I

 

If you don't think there is a statistical disadvantage to having to play a shot out of a fairway divot versus playing from the same relative location in the fairway but not in a divot then I don't know what to tell you.

 

How are pitchers ERA's and strikeouts referenced?

 

I **KNOW** I am not the smartest person in the room unlike some others in this forum.

 

[HitEmTrue]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > Ball marks weren't defined. And its actually pretty easy to look up the rules from the past:

> > http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2016.html

> > There is about a 60 year history where players were allowed to repair damage in a very specific and limited part of the course. The earliest rules are 275 years old.

> > But again, we've asked you to come up with your proposed solution. Can you? To quote you, "That shouldn't be too hard to answer."

>

> I thought it was obvious. My proposed solution would be to leave a fairway divot undefined just like Ball Marks on greens were. Players seemed to be able to navigate that pretty easily in years past.

 

There is little or downside to repairing a ball mark that is 99 percent healed. The ball was probably going to roll over it with no problem, and still will do so.

 

On the other hand, making the same decision on a mostly healed divot hole, which may not be a divot hole in the first place, puts the ball in the player’s hand to place it in a great lie.

 

[bladehunter]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > The Rules of golf have already determined what is fair in the game of golf.

>

> So then golf rules never again have to be amended for any reason, they are perfect the way they are?

 

As for divots. Yes.

 

Look. It’s just bad luck. What’s next. You want to rake bunkers and place if you’re in a footprint or ball mark ?

[FlyingLaw1]

I can see both sides of this I guess.... But I can honestly say I'm only in maybe one or two divots a year... so not a real big deal to me.

 

To me the more irritating thing is the large tufts of grass that are all over the fairways of a couple of courses I play. They sit so proud of the rest of the fairway grass its very difficult to play a shot if your ball is near them. Or the tiny areas of dead grass near the green--picture a dead spot that your ball sits down about a half inch below the grass and about the size of a hole or half a hole... Essentially impossible to get the ball anywhere near the hole out of one of these. I get that bad lies are a part of the game... But to be guaranteed a bogey by missing the green by a foot... dang. *shrugs*

[davep043]

I don't know how much more there is to be said. I feel like I'm on the more liberal end of the "play it down" side, since I've said I'll entertain a rule change if someone can write a clear enforceable rule. I've also said that such a rule NEEDS to define what a divot hole is, and when its no longer a reason for relief. Anything short of that becomes a free-for-all, dependent on the whim of the player and the competitors in his group. Remember what Jimmy Walker said about backstopping:

“If you like the guy you might leave it to help on a shot”

Selective definition isn't good for the game, and selective behavior is already in play on the pro tours.

"If I like you, its a divot, if I don't, play it down"

Would it be any different in your club tournaments, or when you're playing for a few bucks? So until I read an enforceable rule, play it down.

[rogolf]

Playing it down is the answer and the best way to improve your game. The game of golf is played on all different types of courses and conditions, and these make the game challenging, as it should be.

Simulator golf on the other hand....

[Argonne69]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

 

'C'mon. They'd still be p-ssing and moaning about the rare possibility of landing in a 2nd divot hole.

[HatsForBats]

> @davep043 said:

> I don't know how much more there is to be said. I feel like I'm on the more liberal end of the "play it down" side, since I've said I'll entertain a rule change if someone can write a clear enforceable rule. I've also said that such a rule NEEDS to define what a divot hole is, and when its no longer a reason for relief. Anything short of that becomes a free-for-all, dependent on the whim of the player and the competitors in his group. Remember what Jimmy Walker said about backstopping:

> “If you like the guy you might leave it to help on a shot”

> Selective definition isn't good for the game, and selective behavior is already in play on the pro tours.

> "If I like you, its a divot, if I don't, play it down"

> Would it be any different in your club tournaments, or when you're playing for a few bucks? So until I read an enforceable rule, play it down.

 

From my point of view there is a pretty clear precedent with ball marks not being defined and players being able to determine what was and what wasn't a ball mark. Seems very similar to me and I can't ever recall players having a big problem determining what was a ball mark and what was not.

 

I am not sure I would ever accept a 'free-for-all dependent on the whim of the player and the competitors in a players group' argument. There are plenty of other situations where the players can be left to offer their opinion. There should also be a player outside of a group that can have the final say if the group can't come to an agreement. Also, per the USGA it is a game of honor and many here parrot that. If competitors are expected to act with honor then the 'issue' of liking a player or not has no bearing on the groups ruling and should not be able to be used for dismissal of a proposed rule change.

[HatsForBats]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > Ball marks weren't defined. And its actually pretty easy to look up the rules from the past:

> > > http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2016.html

> > > There is about a 60 year history where players were allowed to repair damage in a very specific and limited part of the course. The earliest rules are 275 years old.

> > > But again, we've asked you to come up with your proposed solution. Can you? To quote you, "That shouldn't be too hard to answer."

> >

> > I thought it was obvious. My proposed solution would be to leave a fairway divot undefined just like Ball Marks on greens were. Players seemed to be able to navigate that pretty easily in years past.

>

> There is little or downside to repairing a ball mark that is 99 percent healed. The ball was probably going to roll over it with no problem, and still will do so.

>

> On the other hand, making the same decision on a mostly healed divot hole, which may not be a divot hole in the first place, puts the ball in the player’s hand to place it in a great lie.

>

 

I would think it would be a drop rather than a placement which would not guarantee a great lie.

 

[davep043]

> @HatsForBats said:

 

> I am not sure I would ever accept a 'free-for-all dependent on the whim of the player and the competitors in a players group' argument. There are plenty of other situations where the players can be left to offer their opinion. There should also be a player outside of a group that can have the final say if the group can't come to an agreement. Also, per the USGA it is a game of honor and many here parrot that. If competitors are expected to act with honor then the 'issue' of liking a player or not has no bearing on the groups ruling and should not be able to be used for dismissal of a proposed rule change.

 

We have read the words of an actual PGA Tour member who says quite bluntly that "friendship" actually DOES have a bearing on how the rules currently in effect are manipulated. I think that to ignore that when writing new rules is foolish. Rules, including those around backstopping, should be written clearly and definitively. If you can't do that, leave things the way they are. Its clear and definitive now, no relief from divot holes, easy to enforce.

[nsxguy]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > I don't know how much more there is to be said. I feel like I'm on the more liberal end of the "play it down" side, since I've said I'll entertain a rule change if someone can write a clear enforceable rule. I've also said that such a rule NEEDS to define what a divot hole is, and when its no longer a reason for relief. Anything short of that becomes a free-for-all, dependent on the whim of the player and the competitors in his group. Remember what Jimmy Walker said about backstopping:

> > “If you like the guy you might leave it to help on a shot”

> > Selective definition isn't good for the game, and selective behavior is already in play on the pro tours.

> > "If I like you, its a divot, if I don't, play it down"

> > Would it be any different in your club tournaments, or when you're playing for a few bucks? So until I read an enforceable rule, play it down.

>

> From my point of view there is a pretty clear precedent with ball marks not being defined and players being able to determine what was and what wasn't a ball mark. **Seems very similar to me and I can't ever recall players having a big problem determining what was a ball mark and what was not**.

 

In the distant past, say last year, do you not recall Tour Pros calling over their fellow competitor and having them verify that what the guy wanted to fix was indeed a ball mark ?

 

>

> I am not sure I would ever accept a 'free-for-all dependent on the whim of the player and the competitors in a players group' argument. There are plenty of other situations where the players can be left to offer their opinion. There should also be a player outside of a group that can have the final say if the group can't come to an agreement. **Also, per the USGA it is a game of honor and many here parrot that. If competitors are expected to act with honor then the 'issue' of liking a player or not has no bearing on the groups ruling and should not be able to be used for dismissal of a proposed rule change.**

 

In the past you've acknowledged that "sandbaggers", otherwise known as "cheats", exist. You don't think that a fellow competitor would deny something is a divot for an opponent ? Or a guy he "liked" vs. one he didn't ?

 

And when other players offer their opinions, and they differ, who breaks the tie ?

 

 

 

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

[Argonne69]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

 

What's the depth of a sand filled divot hole?

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

>

> What's the depth of a sand filled divot hole?

>

If it is filled with sand and has no depth it is not a hole, is it? Besides, what is so difficult in hitting from top of sand?

 

[SNIPERBBB]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Argonne69 said:

> > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

> >

> > What's the depth of a sand filled divot hole?

> >

> If it is filled with sand and has no depth it is not a hole, is it? Besides, what is so difficult in hitting from top of sand?

>

 

The people that complain about sandy driving ranges.

[Argonne69]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Argonne69 said:

> > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

> >

> > What's the depth of a sand filled divot hole?

> >

> If it is filled with sand and has no depth it is not a hole, is it? Besides, what is so difficult in hitting from top of sand?

>

 

The OP and his supporters have **still not** given a definition of a divot hole, so I'm assuming that a sand filled one is no different to them. If one is expecting a perfect lie in the fairway, surely a sand filled divot is no where near perfect. A bare patch of dirt is not a perfect lie, either, so that probably gets added to the list. A slight depression in the turf is not a perfect lie, so I assume that gets added, too. Ball touching a small branch that can't be removed without moving the ball? Imperfection. 'Free drop.

 

Basically, if I'm allowed to determine if any imperfection warrants a drop, you can rest assured that I'm taking advantage of it and taking the drop.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

>

> What's the depth of a sand filled divot hole?

>

 

African or European?

[Argonne69]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @Argonne69 said:

> > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

> >

> > What's the depth of a sand filled divot hole?

> >

>

> African or European?

 

I dunno.

 


 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @Argonne69 said:

> > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > Carry a depth gauge, take a picture of the divot then play two balls then take it up with the committee?

> > >

> > > What's the depth of a sand filled divot hole?

> > >

> >

> > African or European?

>

> I dunno.

>

> 

>

>

 

Exactly. Aaahhhh!

[SNIPERBBB]

https://img.gifglobe.com/grabs/montypython/MontyPythonAndTheHolyGrail/gif/z1kjrU3wlGfL.gif

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @Argonne69 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

>

> 'C'mon. They'd still be p-ssing and moaning about the rare possibility of landing in a 2nd divot hole.

 

Exactly! Chasing windmills and building strawmen.

I have yet another solution for the "we want divot relief" guys. Allow them unlimited relief from fairway divots, however they must not clean the ball and they must toss it backward over their shoulder for a completely random lie. No fluffing allowed.

[rogolf]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @Argonne69 said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

> >

> > 'C'mon. They'd still be p-ssing and moaning about the rare possibility of landing in a 2nd divot hole.

>

> Exactly! Chasing windmills and building strawmen.

> I have yet another solution for the "we want divot relief" guys. Allow them unlimited relief from fairway divots, however they must not clean the ball and they must toss it backward over their shoulder for a completely random lie. No fluffing allowed.

 

Don't worry about it. They're already playing the way they want and will continue to do so. They are just seeking authorization under the Rules to justify their actions.

[hornet67]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @Argonne69 said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

> >

> > 'C'mon. They'd still be p-ssing and moaning about the rare possibility of landing in a 2nd divot hole.

>

> Exactly! Chasing windmills and building strawmen.

> I have yet another solution for the "we want divot relief" guys. Allow them unlimited relief from fairway divots, however they must not clean the ball and they must toss it backward over their shoulder for a completely random lie. No fluffing allowed.

why do you think relief would involve placing or fluffing the ball when taking relief?....anytime I take relief I drop the ball and the lie is the lie.> @rogolf said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > @Argonne69 said:

> > > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

> > >

> > > 'C'mon. They'd still be p-ssing and moaning about the rare possibility of landing in a 2nd divot hole.

> >

> > Exactly! Chasing windmills and building strawmen.

> > I have yet another solution for the "we want divot relief" guys. Allow them unlimited relief from fairway divots, however they must not clean the ball and they must toss it backward over their shoulder for a completely random lie. No fluffing allowed.

>

> Don't worry about it. They're already playing the way they want and will continue to do so. They are just seeking authorization under the Rules to justify their actions.

 

why would you believe the ball must be placed or fluffed when the rules address taking relief by dropping in almost all other circumstances.... and as said before I follow the rules of golf I just don't agree with this one (and I do play from divots). I am not justifying anything I am just stating my opinion and hoping someday the governing bodies of golf see this as reasonable reason to seek relief.

[rogolf]

> @hornet67 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > @Argonne69 said:

> > > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

> > >

> > > 'C'mon. They'd still be p-ssing and moaning about the rare possibility of landing in a 2nd divot hole.

> >

> > Exactly! Chasing windmills and building strawmen.

> > I have yet another solution for the "we want divot relief" guys. Allow them unlimited relief from fairway divots, however they must not clean the ball and they must toss it backward over their shoulder for a completely random lie. No fluffing allowed.

> why do you think relief would involve placing or fluffing the ball when taking relief?....anytime I take relief I drop the ball and the lie is the lie.> @rogolf said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > > @Argonne69 said:

> > > > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > > > In a world where we determine there must be some type of free divot relief, the only solution I can offer is that a player would be entitled to 1 free drop per round for a ball in the fairway. Then we don't have to define a divot, there would be no arguing and it forces the golfer to use it judiciously.

> > > >

> > > > 'C'mon. They'd still be p-ssing and moaning about the rare possibility of landing in a 2nd divot hole.

> > >

> > > Exactly! Chasing windmills and building strawmen.

> > > I have yet another solution for the "we want divot relief" guys. Allow them unlimited relief from fairway divots, however they must not clean the ball and they must toss it backward over their shoulder for a completely random lie. No fluffing allowed.

> >

> > Don't worry about it. They're already playing the way they want and will continue to do so. They are just seeking authorization under the Rules to justify their actions.

>

> why would you believe the ball must be placed or fluffed when the rules address taking relief by dropping in almost all other circumstances.... and as said before I follow the rules of golf I just don't agree with this one (and I do play from divots). I am not justifying anything I am just stating my opinion and **hoping someday the governing bodies of golf see this as reasonable reason to seek relief.**

 

Don't hold your breath while you're doing a Dusty Springfield ("Wishing and Hoping")