It's time, Pro's (and others) should get relief from divots...

[2bGood]

41 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

For all of those who say "How do you define a divot", and make it to be such a difficult task, I would submit how do you define "Two Estimated Reference Points"?  Oh wait, the rules of golf have provided guidance in the new rule E-5 Alternative to Stroke and Distance for Lost Ball or Ball Out of Bounds:

 

This option allows the player to drop in a large area between the point where the ball is estimated to have come to rest or gone out of bounds and the edge of the fairway of the hole being played that is not nearer the hole.

 

Two Estimated Reference Points:

a. Ball Reference Point: The point where the original ball is estimated to have:

• Come to rest on the course, or
• Last crossed the edge of the course boundary to go out of bounds.

b. Fairway Reference Point: The point of fairway of the hole being played that is nearest to the ball reference point, but is not nearer the hole than the ball reference point.

For purposes of this Local Rule, “fairway” means any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less.

If a ball is estimated to be lost on the course or last crossed the edge of the course boundary short of the fairway, the fairway reference point may be a grass path or a teeing ground for the hole being played cut to fairway height or less.

 

Yes, to all the naysayers, if one can "estimate" where a ball has come to rest or gone out of bounds, certainly one can estimate what constitutes a divot hole.  Defining a divot hole seems to be a rather simple possibility within the rules of golf.

 

By the way, earlier someone mentioned there is no definition of "fairway" in the rules of golf.  Well, apparently now there is.

 

 

To be clear E-5 is not a 'new rule'. It is a new model local rule. Model Local rules are suggestions on how clubs could word a local rule, but they are not themselves rules (until a club adopts them - and when they do they may alter the wording).

 

To your point, the actual rules do allow for some judgment in them for instance, the term virtually certain comes up often, which does take some judgement. 

 

I don't think using your judgement to define a divot I equivalent to other areas where judgement is used. But I am curious to how you would write the rule? You would still need some form of definition of a divot it is (even if people need to use judgement to determine if the area you are in meets that definition). 

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, 2bGood said:

To be clear E-5 is not a 'new rule'. It is a new model local rule. Model Local rules are suggestions on how clubs could word a local rule, but they are not themselves rules (until a club adopts them - and when they do they may alter the wording).

 

To your point, the actual rules do allow for some judgment in them for instance, the term virtually certain comes up often, which does take some judgement. 

 

I don't think using your judgement to define a divot I equivalent to other areas where judgement is used. But I am curious to how you would write the rule? You would still need some form of definition of a divot it is (even if people need to use judgement to determine if the area you are in meets that definition). 

 

 

 

Exactly. It is easy to see a freshly made divot hole. It’s when is it no longer a divot hole that is impossible to define.

[oikos1]

9 hours ago, 2bGood said:

To be clear E-5 is not a 'new rule'. It is a new model local rule. Model Local rules are suggestions on how clubs could word a local rule, but they are not themselves rules (until a club adopts them - and when they do they may alter the wording).

 

To your point, the actual rules do allow for some judgment in them for instance, the term virtually certain comes up often, which does take some judgement. 

 

I don't think using your judgement to define a divot I equivalent to other areas where judgement is used. But I am curious to how you would write the rule? You would still need some form of definition of a divot it is (even if people need to use judgement to determine if the area you are in meets that definition). 

 

 

 

You said it yourself, some judgement is going to be required.  Under E-5, that judgement is ultimately left up to the player.

 

Model Local Rule E-5

The Local Rule is appropriate for general play where golfers are playing casual rounds or playing their own competitions.

 

“When a player’s ball has not been found or is known or virtually certain to be out of bounds, the player may proceed as follows rather than proceeding under stroke and distance.

 

Rules of Handicapping:

 

2.1b Played by the Rules of Golf

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes.

 

Examples of situations relating to Model Local Rules where a score might be acceptable for handicap purposes include:l A player has proceeded under the alternative option to the stroke and distance relief procedure, despite this Model Local Rule not being in effect.

 

The final determination is at the discretion of the Committee, based on the circumstances."

 

You stated : "I don't think using your judgement to define a divot is equivalent to other areas where judgement is used."

Why not?  Clearly the ruling bodies have determined that a golfer can make a judgement at up to 300 yards or more away as to where a ball last crossed over the edge of the course boundary to go out of bounds.  How accurate do you think most golfers are in their "judgement"?  Yet the ruling bodies find the players judgement acceptable enough to be used for handicapping purposes.

As for writing the rule, that is up to the ruling bodies.  My point is that it absolutely is possible for the ruling bodies to write a rule any way they choose.  The ruling bodies have done it with model local rule E-5, which is included within the rules of golf.  I'm merely pointing out the defense "How would you define a divot?" and "How would you write the rule?" are irrelevant to the fact that a rule can be written to define what a divot hole is, how to proceed under the new rule, and then said rule would be at the discretion of the player.  The ruling bodies have clearly established their authority to make, or change, a rule and it has nothing to do with whether the rule is liked or not. It just becomes a rule.

 

Interesting how you are trying to separate rule E-5 from the Rules of Golf.  Even if it's a model local rule, it is still a rule of golf and recognized for handicapping purposes.

[oikos1]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Exactly. It is easy to see a freshly made divot hole. It’s when is it no longer a divot hole that is impossible to define.

It's easy to see where a ball goes out of bounds one yard away from you.  It's when it's up to 300 yards away it becomes impossible to know the precise location.  😀

[smashdn]

Casual Rounds, handicapping, playing their own competitions are not germane to a discussion involving professional players.

 

How do we handle a divot that is fully grassed over but the depression still remains?  A deep un-filled divot grown in.  I find that much more troublesome than a properly sand-filled one or where someone has replaced the turf.

[Tatertuck]

See, I never have to worry about this argument. Can someone tell me what it's like to hit a fairway in the first place? 

[oikos1]

54 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Casual Rounds, handicapping, playing their own competitions are not germane to a discussion involving professional players.

 

The rules of golf are germane to all that you listed.

 

The OP titled "It's time, Pro's (and others) should get relief from divots..."  Therefore, casual Rounds, handicapping, playing their own competitions and professional players are germane to a discussion involving the rules of golf.

 

For example, the USGA and the R&A, in all of their wisdom, could make a local rule, just as they did with rule E-5, that would define and provide guidance for the player when dealing with a divot hole.  They could also state "The Local Rule is not appropriate for competitions limited to highly skilled players (that is, professional competitions and elite amateur competitions)", just as they did with rule E-5.

 

Making and changing rules doesn't appear to be that difficult for the ruling bodies.

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

It's easy to see where a ball goes out of bounds one yard away from you.  It's when it's up to 300 yards away it becomes impossible to know the precise location.  😀

Maybe that’s why e5 is not a rule of golf.  It’s only an allowable local rule. My club did not show its use.

[oikos1]

7 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Maybe that’s why e5 is not a rule of golf.  It’s only an allowable local rule. My club did not show its use.

Lol.  So the ruling bodies made a rule that's not a rule?

 

2.1b Played by the Rules of Golf

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes.

[Shilgy]

Just now, oikos1 said:

Lol.  So the ruling bodies made a rule that's not a rule?

 

2.1b Played by the Rules of Golf

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes.

Being able to post the round does not make it a “rule”. 
 

But then I think you already know that.

 

 If you think it’s a rule of golf try playing a tournament that is NOT using it and use it anyways. See what happens to your score. 

[oikos1]

22 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Being able to post the round does not make it a “rule”. 
 

But then I think you already know that.

 

 If you think it’s a rule of golf try playing a tournament that is NOT using it and use it anyways. See what happens to your score. 

Of course not.  The rule is a rule.  Honor the rules of a tournament. 

 

Certainly you follow the rules?  In other words, you have to accept that in some local tournament you might enter, if the committee decides to implement rule E-5, you'll have to accept other players utilizing this rule, perhaps to your disadvantage.  But, as many like to quote, "golf isn't always fair".

 

I've been challenging the idea that "you can't define a divot, or more appropriately divot hole".  You certainly can.  Doesn't mean everyone is going to like that definition, but the ruling bodies could easily define a divot hole, provide guidance and leave it to the players discretion.

 

Ruling bodies make a local model rule. 

Local model rule is "not appropriate for competitions limited to highly skilled players (that is, professional competitions and elite amateur competitions)".

Players, committees and competitions determine when to implement the local model rule.

Ruling bodies re-evaluate the local model rule at the appropriate time.

Edited May 6, 2021 by oikos1

[Shilgy]

34 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Of course not.  The rule is a rule.  Honor the rules of a tournament. 

 

Certainly you follow the rules?  In other words, you have to accept that in some local tournament you might enter, if the committee decides to implement rule E-5, you'll have to accept other players utilizing this rule, perhaps to your disadvantage.  But, as many like to quote, "golf isn't always fair".

 

I've been challenging the idea that "you can't define a divot, or more appropriately divot hole".  You certainly can.  Doesn't mean everyone is going to like that definition, but the ruling bodies could easily define a divot hole, provide guidance and leave it to the players discretion.

 

Ruling bodies make a local model rule. 

Local model rule is "not appropriate for competitions limited to highly skilled players (that is, professional competitions and elite amateur competitions)".

Players, committees and competitions determine when to implement the local model rule.

Ruling bodies re-evaluate the local model rule at the appropriate time.

You say you can define a divot hole but none of us, as I recall, have ever seen a definitive version. Or if you have please repost. 
How would you define a divot  hole relief that is clear when relief is no longer to be granted? It’s easy when it’s new. But when is relief no longer granted?

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

provide guidance and leave it to the players discretion.

 

I think that is why you won't see them ever do this for divots.  With something like casual water it is very clear and definitive (something regarding over the soles of the shoes iirc), and lift clean place because it happens everywhere within the fairway.  Divots would amount to little slivers in the general area that aren't, and would be entirely too discretionary, imo.

 

I still like to point out you can get relief from them.

[oikos1]

5 hours ago, Shilgy said:

You say you can define a divot hole but none of us, as I recall, have ever seen a definitive version. Or if you have please repost. 
How would you define a divot  hole relief that is clear when relief is no longer to be granted? It’s easy when it’s new. But when is relief no longer granted?

How does one determine where a ball went out of bounds at 200-300 yards?

 

As for defining a divot hole, those that don't like the idea of giving relief will never accept any definition until it's actually a rule.  And maybe not even then.

 

So there is no point going down that road.  If the ruling bodies make a rule, just like E-5, or change a rule, such as "a player is allowed to mark and lift the ball and proceed under the Rule without needing first to announce this intention to another person or to give that person a chance to observe the process", it's accepted as a rule.

 

The naysayers will only accept the rule when it's a rule.  Thus, it's up to the ruling bodies to make the rule.  Anyone who says you can't define a divot hole just doesn't want it to be defined.

[oikos1]

5 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

I think that is why you won't see them ever do this for divots.  With something like casual water it is very clear and definitive (something regarding over the soles of the shoes iirc), and lift clean place because it happens everywhere within the fairway.  Divots would amount to little slivers in the general area that aren't, and would be entirely too discretionary, imo.

 

I still like to point out you can get relief from them.

The rules allow for quite a bit of player discretion and intent.  Three new rulings allow for that very thing:

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/golfs-new-rules-stroke-and-distance.html

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/moving-or-touching-loose-impediments-or-sand-in-a-bunker.html

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/elimination-of-the-requirement-to-announce-the-players-intent.html

 

Why should a players discretion and intent for a divot hole be any different?  Is golf not the ultimate gentleman's game, in which honoring the rules and penalizing oneself are held in the highest regard?  It certainly appears the ruling bodies put a lot of trust in the player to effectively understand, decide and implement the appropriate course of action for these three new rules changes.

[2bGood]

8 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Lol.  So the ruling bodies made a rule that's not a rule?

 

2.1b Played by the Rules of Golf

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes.

You can not play a hole at all and still post for handicap purposes. So it is not really a very useful lense to look at this through. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by 2bGood

[oikos1]

8 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

You can not play a hole at all and still post for handicap purposes. So it is not really a very useful lense to look at this through. 

Cannot play what "hole at all"?  Are you saying that if playing under Rule E-5, a player cannot post a score for handicapping purposes?

[nsxguy]

On 5/4/2021 at 3:30 PM, J_Tizzle said:

 

Plus i'd argue that playing out of a sandfilled divot is potentially even worse than playing out of a divot.  Bunkers are considered hazards on the golf course, why should we be forced to hit out of a hidden hazard that was randomly put in the middle of the place where we're supposed to hit the ball...

 

I get all the arguments of playing it where it lies and blah blah blah, but I don't see playing a ball up 5" in the fairway for a fair lie is any worse than everyone who scoops a putt lol.  Everyone in this thread acting like touching the ball in the fairway is so against everything golf ever stood for will scoop a 3ft putt and not bat an eye at it, lol.  

 

breaking some rules is against the spirit of the game, but not finishing the hole is cool because you would have made it anyways.  

 

It's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that those who want to play by the rules,,,,,,,,,,,, just pick up their 3-footers. lol

 

But then some will say just about anything to score a point.

[nsxguy]

31 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Cannot play what "hole at all"?  Are you saying that if playing under Rule E-5, a player cannot post a score for handicapping purposes?

 

No, he's saying that there are provisions in the Rules of Handicapping that allow a score to be posted if a hole is not completed OR if a hole is not started.

 

And for all the moaning you've been doing about "They can define a divot (hole)" I don't see you taking a crack at it - at least not in the last couple of pages where you've kept saying "they" could (don't know if you tried earlier in the thread). 🙃

[oikos1]

23 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

No, he's saying that there are provisions in the Rules of Handicapping that allow a score to be posted if a hole is not completed OR if a hole is not started.

 

And for all the moaning you've been doing about "They can define a divot (hole)" I don't see you taking a crack at it - at least not in the last couple of pages where you've kept saying "they" could (don't know if you tried earlier in the thread). 🙃

They is the ruling bodies.  Have you made any rules lately for the ruling bodies?  To say that a rule can't be made by the ruling bodies is ridiculous.  They can make any rule they want.  Isn't that obvious?

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

Cannot play what "hole at all"?  Are you saying that if playing under Rule E-5, a player cannot post a score for handicapping purposes?

I am saying you can skip 4 holes and still post an 18 hole score for handicap purposes. You can also pick up the ball anytime you want and still post a score and do many other things that are against the rules. 

 

Posting for handicap purposes is very liberal and does not require following the rules.

 

It not really useful standard to use in this conversation.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by 2bGood

[oikos1]

1 minute ago, 2bGood said:

I am saying you can skip 4 holes and still post an 18 hole score for handicap purposes. You can also pick up the ball anytime you want and still post a score and do many other things that are against the rules. 

 

Posting for handicap purposes is very liberal and does not require following the rules.

 

It not really useful standard to use in this conversation.

 

 

Oh, so those who post handicaps don't have to play by the rules?  Hmmm, for some reason those posting at WRX have led me to believe otherwise.  Kinda throws a hand grenade into the world handicapping system.  Oh dear.

 

However, that really is another topic.  Is rule E-5 a rule or not?  If not, I am perplexed as to why the ruling bodies would feel compelled to create such a rule and place it within the rules of golf.

 

Seriously, "Posting for handicap purposes is very liberal and does not require following the rules" ?1?!?  Stop the presses!

[2bGood]

13 hours ago, oikos1 said:

You said it yourself, some judgement is going to be required.  Under E-5, that judgement is ultimately left up to the player.

 

Model Local Rule E-5

The Local Rule is appropriate for general play where golfers are playing casual rounds or playing their own competitions.

 

“When a player’s ball has not been found or is known or virtually certain to be out of bounds, the player may proceed as follows rather than proceeding under stroke and distance.

 

Rules of Handicapping:

 

2.1b Played by the Rules of Golf

"Where a player follows the provisions set down in a Model Local Rule, even when the Committee in charge of the course has not adopted that Model Local Rule, the score may still be acceptable for handicap purposes.

 

Examples of situations relating to Model Local Rules where a score might be acceptable for handicap purposes include:l A player has proceeded under the alternative option to the stroke and distance relief procedure, despite this Model Local Rule not being in effect.

 

The final determination is at the discretion of the Committee, based on the circumstances."

 

You stated : "I don't think using your judgement to define a divot is equivalent to other areas where judgement is used."

Why not?  Clearly the ruling bodies have determined that a golfer can make a judgement at up to 300 yards or more away as to where a ball last crossed over the edge of the course boundary to go out of bounds.  How accurate do you think most golfers are in their "judgement"?  Yet the ruling bodies find the players judgement acceptable enough to be used for handicapping purposes.

As for writing the rule, that is up to the ruling bodies.  My point is that it absolutely is possible for the ruling bodies to write a rule any way they choose.  The ruling bodies have done it with model local rule E-5, which is included within the rules of golf.  I'm merely pointing out the defense "How would you define a divot?" and "How would you write the rule?" are irrelevant to the fact that a rule can be written to define what a divot hole is, how to proceed under the new rule, and then said rule would be at the discretion of the player.  The ruling bodies have clearly established their authority to make, or change, a rule and it has nothing to do with whether the rule is liked or not. It just becomes a rule.

 

Interesting how you are trying to separate rule E-5 from the Rules of Golf.  Even if it's a model local rule, it is still a rule of golf and recognized for handicapping purposes.

 No need to bring E-5 into this. E-5 is not a rule of golf - but a suggestion for a rule that can be adopted by a committee. Regardless you don't need it to make the point that judgement is part of the rules - I agree with that and Reasonable Judgement is actually  outlined as part of rule 1.3. 

 

However parameters are given in the rules for where and how players can use judgement. For instance everything in the rule book that you get relief from, has a definition - players use their judgement to determine if their situation meets the definition.

 

Divots would also need a definition.

 

Also I am not seeing this discussed, but currently for anything deemed an abnormal condition you get stance and lie relief. Do you and others propose with divots you would get relief for your stance? In some areas you could probably take relief 20 times in a row and move right across the fairway depending how divots are defined. If you don't get stance relief - why not? Once you say it is an abnormal area of the course it does not seem fair you have to stand in it.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

21 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Oh, so those who post handicaps don't have to play by the rules?  Hmmm, for some reason those posting at WRX have led me to believe otherwise.  Kinda throws a hand grenade into the world handicapping system.  Oh dear.

 

However, that really is another topic.  Is rule E-5 a rule or not?  If not, I am perplexed as to why the ruling bodies would feel compelled to create such a rule and place it within the rules of golf.

 

Seriously, "Posting for handicap purposes is very liberal and does not require following the rules" ?1?!?  Stop the presses!

 E-5 is not a rule of golf. Again it is a suggestion and provides an example for how a rule could be written. It actually not part of the 24 rules of golf, but is under the committee procedures. (see below) If a committee puts it in place it then receives the same status as a rule of golf for that particular competition or course.

 

This Section lists authorized Model Local Rules that may be used by a Committee:

• These can either be adopted in their entirety or can serve as an example of how to write a particular type of Local Rule.

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by 2bGood

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

 No need to bring E-5 into this. E-5 is not a rule of golf - but a suggestion for a rule that can be adopted by a committee. Regardless you don't need it to make the point that judgement is part of the rules - I agree with that. 

 

However parameters are given in the rules for where and how players can use judgement. For instance everything in the rule book that you get relief from, has a definition - players use their judgement to determine if their situation meets the definition.

 

Divots would also need a definition.

 

Also I am not seeing this discussed, but currently for anything deemed an abnormal condition you get stance and lie relief. Do you and others propose with divots you would get relief for your stance? In some areas you could probably take relief 20 times in a row and move right across the fairway depending how divots are defined. If you don't get stance relief - why not? Once you say it is an abnormal area of the course it does not seem fair you have to stand in it.

 

 

The only definition I’m seeing is that @oikos1is coming very close to the definition of a troll.

[DustinJohnsonWagner]

I'm most certainly in favor of getting relief from divots. In 2019, I earned conditional status on the Mackenzie Tour (PGA Canada) through one of the q-schools. However, the position of the conditional status never gave me any starts. On one of the holes during my q-school, I'm laying two in the fairway approximately 100 yards on a Par 5 in a potential birdie situation. I walk up to my ball and notice it's in a deep divot perpendicular to the hole. I'm absolutely f*****. I'm forced to make a steep swing and end up hitting a low thin shot that flies the green into a short sided bunker. I make bogey, possibly costing me one or two shots. A couple shots less would've given me better conditional status and possible tournament starts

Edited May 7, 2021 by DustinJohnsonWagner

[Pleasedwith3putts]

Nobody should have to play out of a divot on a fairway, period. Produces a totally lottery on lay up holes in particular. For a long time pitch marks on greens could be repaired which meant there also had to be a process for deciding what was a pitchmark . So what's the difference, now you can tap down anything on the green to ensure a smooth surface to putt on, why stick in the dark ages and have play out of divots?

[smashdn]

12 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Is golf not the ultimate gentleman's game, in which honoring the rules and penalizing oneself are held in the highest regard? 

 

This seems very at odds with the idea of wanting free relief from divots.

 

I hate to go full boomer (because I am not even close) but this seems a very millenial mindset to evoke the rules in an effort to change them so they fit what you want.

 

I play a decent amount of golf and think I have ended up on hard pan about 5 times over the 20 or so years I have played.  I have ended up in a divot, sand-filled or not, I think once.  I just don't think this is a problem for most golfers.  You get the professional aspect of the discussion going and I am sure it happens more often but they are more suited to handle whatever the perceived problem is.

 

Take a drop.  Pitch it out.  Go re-tee.  Play out sideways.  Just knuckle-down and play the shot.  Lots of options.

[smashdn]

6 hours ago, DustinJohnsonWagner said:

I'm most certainly in favor of getting relief from divots. In 2019, I earned conditional status on the Mackenzie Tour (PGA Canada) through one of the q-schools. However, the position of the conditional status never gave me any starts. On one of the holes during my q-school, I'm laying two in the fairway approximately 100 yards on a Par 5 in a potential birdie situation. I walk up to my ball and notice it's in a deep divot perpendicular to the hole. I'm absolutely f*****. I'm forced to make a steep swing and end up hitting a low thin shot that flies the green into a short sided bunker. I make bogey, possibly costing me one or two shots. A couple shots less would've given me better conditional status and possible tournament starts

 

Why didn't you take your drop?  The choice between the potential outcomes was yours to make in that situation.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Why didn't you take your drop?  The choice between the potential outcomes was yours to make in that situation.

Fictitious people can't take drops. 

 

Who joins 3 years ago, does not make a post the entire time then is compelled to make their first about divots?