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

[oikos1]

11 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 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.

 

 Exactly.  It then becomes a rule and garners all of the respect any other rule would, just like Preferred Lies local model rule E-3.  If a professional tournament or elite amateur tournament implemented rule E-3, than it's a rule for that tournament.  Same for E-5, with the exception "is not appropriate for competitions limited to highly skilled players (that is, professional competitions and elite amateur competitions).

 

So, the ruling bodies could make a local model rule for divot holes. 

[oikos1]

10 hours ago, Shilgy said:

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

I suppose that's the easy way out.  What is most curious is that many against a rule for divot holes continues to insist that it's not possible for the ruling bodies to define a divot hole. 

[smashdn]

17 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

So, the ruling bodies could make a local model rule for divot holes. 

 

Not to argue semantics, but if they made a local rule that applied across the board would it not cease to be a local rule?

 

I can envision a scenario where after 6 straight rounds of competitive play on a certain hole that has a particular area where shots tend to collect where divots would become a problem.  In that case call the area GUR and properly mark it.  

 

(The then logical next step is for the course to do some work on that fairway to change the final resting spot for those shots.

 

Here is a real-life fix for that very scenario.  Local course has a par four that has a very, very steep section of the fairway that when it plays as a par four you need to lay back short of the steepest part lest your ball end up in the bottom in a bad spot to approach the green.  In competitions they will play it as a par three by establishing teeing grounds at a location in the fairway.  This not only speeds play but also I am thinking minimizes divots in the lay-up area (if played as a four).  Plus safety.  You are hitting the ball down the hill where another group could be playing.

[nsxguy]

8 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

 

You're here 3 years and this is your first post ?

 

Sorry that happened to you but that's golf.

 

Lee Westwood, I believe at the Arnold Palmer tournament this past March, on the 72nd hole with a chance to tie, was right in a fairway divot. The divot was not as bad as you describe but right smack in a divot hole. Other than a wry smile, nothing.

 

Made par though. Lost by 1 (IIRC).

 

Also, if you decide to post more you might want to read the rules for posting, particularly the rule about profanity, disguised or not.   Welcome 👍

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

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

 

 Unplayable would've cost him a shot.

[nsxguy]

10 hours ago, Shilgy said:

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

 

Yup. And our old friend beo or geo wulf (or some such) got tossed for exactly the same behavior; not letting something go.

 

13 hours ago, oikos1 said:

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?

 

Have *I* made any rules lately ? Nope, but *I* am not the one who wants to CHANGE them. YOU are.

 

I challenged you to come up with a model rule for divots and got crickets - well, OK, not exactly crickets but the same old "They can make any rule they want".

 

"They" DON'T WANT TO - just like the majority of posters in the thread.

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, oikos1 said:

 Exactly.  It then becomes a rule and garners all of the respect any other rule would, just like Preferred Lies local model rule E-3.  If a professional tournament or elite amateur tournament implemented rule E-3, than it's a rule for that tournament.  Same for E-5, with the exception "is not appropriate for competitions limited to highly skilled players (that is, professional competitions and elite amateur competitions).

 

So, the ruling bodies could make a local model rule for divot holes. 

 

Of course they could. I had never argued they can't. My argument is they should not do it as the rule that would be created would alter the game golf too significantly. 

 

Let's say the rules are adjusted so divots are considered an abnormal course condition. Rule 16 is now in play and the following definition is in use.

 

Divot - An irregularity in the turf caused by the strike of a club.

 

This is a horribly written definition as, with something like this you have to figure out what caused the damage, you also have to figure out what a 'regular' condition is and this will differ from day to day, and course to course. I am sure other could come up with something better.

 

Regardless once you figure out what is and is not a divot, in many approach shot areas you might be covered with dozens of opportunities for free relief for the lie of the ball and/or stance. They will also all overlap. When you take relief you have to take complete relief so you would have some pretty crazy drops where folks might move their ball 20 yards. It seems like it could be silly fast and lead to all sorts of problems.

 

This bring me back to the only reasonable solution is to play LCP all the time. You could do that, but again (for me) that changes the game at a fundamental level. Some people would love it though - I am just not one of them.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by 2bGood

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, oikos1 said:

I suppose that's the easy way out.  What is most curious is that many against a rule for divot holes continues to insist that it's not possible for the ruling bodies to define a divot hole. 

And yet you continue to proclaim they can but have offered zip.

[oikos1]

8 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

Of course they could. I had never argued they can't. My argument is they should not do it as the rule that would be created would alter the game golf too significantly. 

 

Let's say the rules are adjusted so divots are considered an abnormal course condition. Rule 16 is now in play and the following definition is in use.

 

Divot - An irregularity in the turf caused by the strike of a club.

 

This is a horribly written definition as, with something like this you have to figure out what caused the damage, you also have to figure out what a 'regular' condition is and this will differ from day to day, and course to course. I am sure other could come up with something better.

 

Regardless once you figure out what is and is not a divot, in many approach shot areas you might be covered with dozens of opportunities for free relief for the lie of the ball and/or stance. They will also all overlap. When you take relief you have to take complete relief so you would have some pretty crazy drops where folks might move their ball 20 yards. It seems like it could be silly fast and lead to all sorts of problems.

 

This bring me back to the only reasonable solution is to play LCP all the time. You could do that, but again (for me) that changes the game at a fundamental level. Some people would love it though - I am just not one of them.

 

 

I appreciate your honesty. 

[oikos1]

8 hours ago, Shilgy said:

And yet you continue to proclaim they can but have offered zip.

Rules are made by the ruling bodies all of the time.  Why would you expect any random person to make a rule?  You would never except it.  And that is the whole point.  The ruling bodies can define a divot hole and make a ruling. The ruling bodies make every rule.  You may not like it, and I may not like it, but they most certainly can do it.  So the claim "You can't define a divot hole" is just a firewall to prevent any movement towards an actual rule. 

 

 

[nsxguy]

7 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Rules are made by the ruling bodies all of the time.  Why would you expect any random person to make a rule?  You would never except it.  And that is the whole point.  The ruling bodies can define a divot hole and make a ruling. The ruling bodies make every rule.  You may not like it, and I may not like it, but they most certainly can do it.  So the claim "You can't define a divot hole" is just a firewall to prevent any movement towards an actual rule. 

 

 

 

[oikos1]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Yup. And our old friend beo or geo wulf (or some such) got tossed for exactly the same behavior; not letting something go.

 

 

Have *I* made any rules lately ? Nope, but *I* am not the one who wants to CHANGE them. YOU are.

 

I challenged you to come up with a model rule for divots and got crickets - well, OK, not exactly crickets but the same old "They can make any rule they want".

 

"They" DON'T WANT TO - just like the majority of posters in the thread.

Once again, missing the entire point.  How may golfers wanted rule E-5?  Or changes to being able to examine your ball without declaring, or touching the sand in a bunker with hand or club, or leaving the flag stick in?  Rules change.

 

The individual want of a rule, or the changing of a rule, is irrelevant to the fact that the ruling bodies have made such rules.  There is no reason to say they can't define a divot hole.  It's a lame excuse.  Enjoy your merry go round ride.

[ExTrumpet]

On 5/1/2021 at 8:45 PM, 2bGood said:

 

You remind of an interaction I once had. My fellow player is near a big a rock and takes relief during the hole. When we get to the end of the hole the following conversation occurred:

 

He says "I got a 4".

 

I said "no, I think it was a 5 - you hit the ball 4 times, plus the unplayable you took."

 

He says : "YOU want me take penalty for moving it away from the rock that would have hurt me?????!!!!!"

 

I said: "Not at all - I don't want you to take a penalty - the rules of golf do."

 

 

 

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you're not buying too many beers for your "partners."

 

[nsxguy]

16 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Once again, missing the entire point.  How may golfers wanted rule E-5?  Or changes to being able to examine your ball without declaring, or touching the sand in a bunker with hand or club, or leaving the flag stick in?  Rules change.

 

The individual want of a rule, or the changing of a rule, is irrelevant to the fact that the ruling bodies have made such rules.  There is no reason to say they can't define a divot hole.  It's a lame excuse.  Enjoy your merry go round ride.

 

 

How many wanted E-5 ? Who cares ?

 

The #1 complaint of players regarding not playing more often is that the rounds take too long. The #2 complaint ? I don't know what it is but it's not even in sight of #1.

 

So they made a model local rule E-5 to SAVE TIME as the average golfer's handicap is unlikely to be affected very much by using the local rule. Use it, don't use it. Whatever.

 

"The individual want of a rule, or the changing of a rule, is irrelevant to the fact that the ruling bodies have made such rules."

 

Good grief. Of COURSE rules change. They change when the demand is there and the change is considered consistent by the rules makers.

 

The #1 complaint about the rules themselves was they were too complicated and often too penal of relatively innocent mistakes.

 

So "they" simplified the rules and in so doing also took away some of the "silly"(?) penalties.

 

Do you think they did that because they had nothing better to do ?

 

Or do you think maybe they were responding to their public ?

 

No need to answer - it's way too obvious. 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by nsxguy

[2bGood]

12 minutes ago, ExTrumpet said:

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you're not buying too many beers for your "partners."

 

Many days the beer is the best part. The culture at our club is the the guy who wins the money buys the beers. You win $20 and you buy $50 in beer. 😄 It would be pretty rare that I don't hang around and buy a few beers after a round or got a bought a few. 

 

But If we are in a competition and I see you break a rule, wether you are my best friend or worst  enemy, I will call you on it. Full stop, no question about it. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

How many wanted E-5 ? Who cares ?

 

The #1 complaint of players regarding not playing more often is that the rounds take too long. The #2 complaint ? I don't know what it is but it's not even in sight of #1.

 

So they made a model local rule E-5 to SAVE TIME as the average golfer's handicap is unlikely to be affected very much by using the local rule. Use it, don't use it. Whatever.

 

"The individual want of a rule, or the changing of a rule, is irrelevant to the fact that the ruling bodies have made such rules."

 

Good grief. Of COURSE rules change. They change when the demand is there and the change is considered consistent by the rules makers.

 

The #1 complaint about the rules themselves was they were too complicated and often too penal of relatively innocent mistakes.

 

So "they" simplified the rules and in so doing also took away some of the "silly"(?) penalties.

 

Do you think they did that because they had nothing better to do ?

 

Or do you think maybe they were responding to their public ?

 

No need to answer - it's way too obvious. 

 

 

Never mind with the running in circles.  Divot hole relief will not happen as we all know. 
 

But this does explain the popularity of TopGolf with a certain group of “golfers”.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

9 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Once again, missing the entire point.  How may golfers wanted rule E-5?  Or changes to being able to examine your ball without declaring, or touching the sand in a bunker with hand or club, or leaving the flag stick in?  Rules change.

 

The individual want of a rule, or the changing of a rule, is irrelevant to the fact that the ruling bodies have made such rules.  There is no reason to say they can't define a divot hole.  It's a lame excuse.  Enjoy your merry go round ride.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

OMG this thread is a train wreck.  Here's my prediction--- there will NEVER BE A DIVOT RULE and no one will ever be able to define when a divot stops being a divot that provide any type of reasonably consistent ruling.  Not ever.  If you want relief from a divot, then you and your buddies are welcome to be your own committee under the rules of golf and implement "preferred lies" AKA Lift Clean and Place. 

[oikos1]

13 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

How many wanted E-5 ? Who cares ?

 

The #1 complaint of players regarding not playing more often is that the rounds take too long. The #2 complaint ? I don't know what it is but it's not even in sight of #1.

 

So they made a model local rule E-5 to SAVE TIME as the average golfer's handicap is unlikely to be affected very much by using the local rule. Use it, don't use it. Whatever.

 

"The individual want of a rule, or the changing of a rule, is irrelevant to the fact that the ruling bodies have made such rules."

 

Good grief. Of COURSE rules change. They change when the demand is there and the change is considered consistent by the rules makers.

 

The #1 complaint about the rules themselves was they were too complicated and often too penal of relatively innocent mistakes.

 

So "they" simplified the rules and in so doing also took away some of the "silly"(?) penalties.

 

Do you think they did that because they had nothing better to do ?

 

Or do you think maybe they were responding to their public ?

 

No need to answer - it's way too obvious. 

 

 

So if the golfing public wants divot relief, and the ruling bodies respond by making a local model rule, why do you care?  As you say, "Use it, don't use it. Whatever."

[TiScape]

4 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

OMG this thread is a train wreck.  Here's my prediction--- there will NEVER BE A DIVOT RULE and no one will ever be able to define when a divot stops being a divot that provide any type of reasonably consistent ruling.  Not ever.  If you want relief from a divot, then you and your buddies are welcome to be your own committee under the rules of golf and implement "preferred lies" AKA Lift Clean and Place. 

Yes it is a train wreck and I’m shocked it’s still around the top of this sub-forum 2 months after it’s inception! Relief from a divot. Who knew! Haha 

Time to lock it up and let it die the death it should have a month and a half ago! 😂 

[nsxguy]

10 hours ago, oikos1 said:

So if the golfing public wants divot relief, and the ruling bodies respond by making a local model rule, why do you care?  As you say, "Use it, don't use it. Whatever."

 

I DON'T care.

 

If they make a local rule for relief from divots AND the committee uses the local rule I will use it.

 

Until then you're just shouting at the rain,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and if you and your buddies want to give each other relief in a friendly game, by all means, knock yourself out,,,,,,,

 

I just LOVE playing against vanity 'cappers. 

[smashdn]

On 5/7/2021 at 10:32 AM, nsxguy said:

 

 Unplayable would've cost him a shot.

 

So did hitting from the divot according to him.

[2bGood]

I won't say this will NEVER happen. But relief from divots is more than 10 years away. Absolutely zero interest in making this change from the RB's. 

 

I'll check back in a few years from now and see if you guys are still talking about this.

Edited May 10, 2021 by 2bGood

[BlackDiamondPar5]

42 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

I won't say this will NEVER happen. But relief from divots is more than 10 years away. Absolutely zero interest in making this change from the RB's. 

 

I check back in a few years from now and see if you guys are still talking about this.

A divot rule will come to fruition when their moms are at the turn to give them juice boxes and orange slices. 😂

[davep043]

50 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

A divot rule will come to fruition when their moms are at the turn to give them juice boxes and orange slices. 😂

And a trophy for participating, don't forget the trophy!! 🏆

[b.helts]

For the record, I am not in favor of a relief-from-divot rule.

 

However, prior to the change regarding spike marks and other damage to the green, we'd say "is that a ball mark?" if a spot was in our line and there was a question of whether it was an old ball mark or not. Someone in the group would say "yeah, ball mark" or "no, I don't think that's a ball mark" and we'd go on our way.

 

I think this could be analogous to the "what is a divot?" question. So, like @2bGood I won't say it will NEVER happen, but I hope it doesn't.

[oikos1]

On 5/8/2021 at 9:22 PM, nsxguy said:

 

I DON'T care.

 

If they make a local rule for relief from divots AND the committee uses the local rule I will use it.

 

Until then you're just shouting at the rain,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and if you and your buddies want to give each other relief in a friendly game, by all means, knock yourself out,,,,,,,

 

I just LOVE playing against vanity 'cappers. 

Lol.  We might be closer to agreeing than against, except for who might be shouting at the rain.  😀

 

I'm gonna let this one simmer for a few years...

[nsxguy]

 

13 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

So did hitting from the divot according to him.

 

That may be but that's after the fact.

 

My view was that because of the divot(?) he likely took a much more conservative route and hit the middle of the green thinking maybe he makes a 40 foot putt,,,,,,,,,, instead of shooting for the pin.

 

But if he takes the 1 shot unplayable he now has to hole the next shot from the fairway to tie.

 

Which play would you think has a better shot at making birdie ?

 

Which would YOU do ? I know what I would've done. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by nsxguy

[BlackDiamondPar5]

17 hours ago, b.helts said:

For the record, I am not in favor of a relief-from-divot rule.

 

However, prior to the change regarding spike marks and other damage to the green, we'd say "is that a ball mark?" if a spot was in our line and there was a question of whether it was an old ball mark or not. Someone in the group would say "yeah, ball mark" or "no, I don't think that's a ball mark" and we'd go on our way.

 

I think this could be analogous to the "what is a divot?" question. So, like @2bGood I won't say it will NEVER happen, but I hope it doesn't.

I think that may work great for when you're playing with buddies and not much is at stake. But all bets are off as the stakes increase and the competition is serious.  I'd bet you'd see some guys wanting relief from most any fairway imperfection thus abusing it. 

 

As I've said before, "preferred lies" with lift, clean and place is already in the rules of golf.  If a group of buddies wants to be their own committee and institute it for divot relief then they should go for it.   As for Pro golf,  the only thing I'd ever see as a workable option (and I'm not for it) would be to permit one free relief from any ball in the fairway once per round, moveable 1 club grip length. That forces the golfer to use it judiciously and if they find themselves in a second divot in the same round, then they'd just have to suck it up buttercup. 🙂

[b.helts]

2 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I think that may work great for when you're playing with buddies and not much is at stake. But all bets are off as the stakes increase and the competition is serious.  I'd bet you'd see some guys wanting relief from most any fairway imperfection thus abusing it. 

 

As I've said before, "preferred lies" with lift, clean and place is already in the rules of golf.  If a group of buddies wants to be their own committee and institute it for divot relief then they should go for it.   As for Pro golf,  the only thing I'd ever see as a workable option (and I'm not for it) would be to permit one free relief from any ball in the fairway once per round, moveable 1 club grip length. That forces the golfer to use it judiciously and if they find themselves in a second divot in the same round, then they'd just have to suck it up buttercup. 🙂

Perhaps. Although, in my decades of highly competitive golf, I’ve never seen someone try to take advantage of being able to fix ball marks on the green. Has it happened? I’m sure it did happen from time to time.

 

And who knows, you may be right. But you’re just speculating and my experience with golfers and my faith in them is clearly better than yours. 
 

I hope we never find out, as I hope the ruling bodies never grant relief from divots.