Debate: Golfers Don't Deserve Free Relief from Fairway Divots

[Preeway]

Yes, divots in the fairway should be considered ground under repair. Which is why I move mine even though it happens very rarely.

[Another Steve]

45 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

No, Ground Under Repair has a specific (technical) Definition in the Rules of Golf, that Definition does NOT include random damage made by golfers.

The Putting Green IS unique in the way it is treated within the Rules of Golf.  Ever since 1960 you've been allowed to lift your ball at will, clean your ball, and repair pitch marks.  You can be penalized if your ball played from the green hits another ball at rest on the green.  Continued evolution to agronomy and maintenance has led to more recent changes, now accidental movement of a ball on the green is not penalized, and you can repair almost any damage. 

Its an interesting question for the "divot-relief" proponents, would you prefer to make things "equal" all over the course?  Play your ball down on the green, no marking and lifting, no cleaning, no repair of any damage.

 

Ricky not even trying to quote current rules or defined parts of the course here …. Just making the point that most would never drop the ball into the same ditch (or stick their tee into said ditch) to play an 8 iron to the green from a tee box why would you accept it in the fairway that is generally mowed to be in the same general condition as a tee box unless forced to do so? 

 

DaveP

Nope, i just wanna be able to put my ball on the nice fairway grass that surrounds the grand canyon gouge it’s mired in.

MUCH easier to just add a subsection under GUR to address “golf club turf interaction marks” with free relief to anywhere in a 180* 12” radius area centered on the location of the ball and not nearer the hole.

 

Much easier to just say, if you are in the fairway you are permitted to “move the location of your ball 6” in any direction if you want to” while the ball is on the fairway. 
 

side question: if any part of the ball lies beneath the level of the ground it is considered plugged and allowed relief? What if the ball is in a partially filled divot but has displaced the filler and is now 1/8” below the level of the filler…. It this now technically plugged and allowed relief?

[DaveP043]

7 minutes ago, Preeway said:

Yes, divots in the fairway should be considered ground under repair.

Can you write a definition that can be consistently enforced, yet stops short of allowing preferred lies in the fairway at all times?  Consider bare spots, areas scalped by mowers, surface irregularities, sand-filled divot holes, partially re-grown divot holes, all of the potential poor lies available in the fairway.  Also, would this "GUR relief" apply to your stance as well as the location of your ball, like GUR does currently?  

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

Much easier to just say, if you are in the fairway you are permitted to “move the location of your ball 6” in any direction if you want to” while the ball is on the fairway. 

So its preferred lies everywhere.  No thanks.

3 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

side question: if any part of the ball lies beneath the level of the ground it is considered plugged and allowed relief? What if the ball is in a partially filled divot but has displaced the filler and is now 1/8” below the level of the filler…. It this now technically plugged and allowed relief?

It must be in its own pitch mark to be embedded.  Just my opinion, a ball rolling isn't creating a "pitch mark", so in this example I'd say its not embedded. 

[Preeway]

13 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Can you write a definition that can be consistently enforced, yet stops short of allowing preferred lies in the fairway at all times?  Consider bare spots, areas scalped by mowers, surface irregularities, sand-filled divot holes, partially re-grown divot holes, all of the potential poor lies available in the fairway.  Also, would this "GUR relief" apply to your stance as well as the location of your ball, like GUR does currently?  

Good question. I don't underestimate the complexity of the question posed and I do think the GUR consideration would only apply to the lie of the ball and not the stance. Irregular stances happen all the time. Bare spots or mower burns are unfortunate but I would consider that "rub of the green" and not all lies are considered equal. To me, divots just ring different.

[Another Steve]

Devil’s advocate Trying for a Definition of divot:

ANY fairway turf that has been damaged by a club while striking a ball - commonly called a divot - shall be considered damaged turf when the area of disturbed ground can be distinguished from the adjacent turf IN ANY WAY.
Regardless of whether it has been filled with sand/seed or any attempt to repair/replace the disturbed turf has been made, until the turf has healed to the point of being indistinguishable from the adjacent turf it shall be considered damaged and relief shall be allowed.

 

Edited February 6 by Another Steve

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

We know that but I doubt the rules committee intended that application/scenario.  Perhaps it should be re-written with the stipulation that the player themselves must move the loose impediment.  Anyway, the point was that it was a bad break and short of having a fandom excavation team on hand, would have impaired his play.

We'll have to agree to disagree Dave.  The author is arguing for one standard but with stipulations... can't have it both ways.  As to your last question, no.  Just relief from fairway divots.  We don't expect to play in a divot on the green and we shouldn't have to on the faiway.  My opinion...ymmv.

So what happens when brooks can move an object that someone else can’t? The rules have to be applied fairly across the board and that’s what happened with Tiger and the way the rules are written.

As to the bold you can. That’s why the course is broken up into different areas and there are rules for each area. It’s also why understanding the definitions of different terms is critical to understanding their application to the rules 

[RickyBobby_PR]

24 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

Devil’s advocate Trying for a Definition of divot:

ANY fairway turf that has been damaged by a club while striking a ball - commonly called a divot - shall be considered damaged turf when the area of disturbed ground can be distinguished from the adjacent turf IN ANY WAY.
Regardless of whether it has been filled with sand/seed or any attempt to repair/replace the disturbed turf has been made, until the turf has healed to the point of being indistinguishable from the adjacent turf it shall be considered damaged and relief shall be allowed.

 

And when does that damage no longer become ground under repair and must be played from? And how do you define it so that every golfer and rules official sees it the same way.

[fixyurdivot]

5 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

So what happens when brooks can move an object that someone else can’t? The rules have to be applied fairly across the board and that’s what happened with Tiger and the way the rules are written.

As to the bold you can. That’s why the course is broken up into different areas and there are rules for each area. It’s also why understanding the definitions of different terms is critical to understanding their application to the rules 

So Brian Harmon could have enlisted fans to move that very loose definition of a "loose impediment"?  Got it .  We'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of fairway divots.

[RickyBobby_PR]

30 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

Devil’s advocate Trying for a Definition of divot:

ANY fairway turf that has been damaged by a club while striking a ball - commonly called a divot - shall be considered damaged turf when the area of disturbed ground can be distinguished from the adjacent turf IN ANY WAY.
Regardless of whether it has been filled with sand/seed or any attempt to repair/replace the disturbed turf has been made, until the turf has healed to the point of being indistinguishable from the adjacent turf it shall be considered damaged and relief shall be allowed.

 

And when does that damage no longer become ground under repair and must be played from? And how do you define it so that every golfer and rules official sees it the same way.

 

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

So Brian Harmon could have enlisted fans to move that very loose definition of a "loose impediment"?  Got it .  We'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of fairway divots.

Theres no loose definition for what a loose impeding or a moveable object is. Only those who wish to not suffer a possible higher score due to a bad break, just like those not wanting to take an unplayable for a situation that in unfavorable to their health or condition of their club.

 

[ShimmyCocoBop]

Food for thought...

I never thought it would happen, but the rules did change to allow spike marks, etc., to be repaired on the greens so that players can have a premium line to the hole.

Maybe the same thing will happen for divots in the fairways!

What's the difference?

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Another Steve said:

Ricky not even trying to quote current rules or defined parts of the course here …. Just making the point that most would never drop the ball into the same ditch (or stick their tee into said ditch) to play an 8 iron to the green from a tee box why would you accept it in the fairway that is generally mowed to be in the same general condition as a tee box unless forced to do so? 

Well if you aren’t going quote the rules of golf then the discussion isn’t relevant.

The tee box is a defined area of the course and has its rules. Such as being able to place your ball within two club lengths of the tee markers. So there is no drop needed on a tee box as the ball can be placed anywhere in the 2 club lengths and teed up if one chooses. Or one could create a tee ala Laura Davies which can’t be done anywhere else.

Just like preferred lies or lift clean and place. It’s typically only in the fairway yet the rough is part of the same general area.

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 minutes ago, ShimmyCocoBop said:

Food for thought...

I never thought it would happen, but the rules did change to allow spike marks, etc., to be repaired on the greens so that players can have a premium line to the hole.

Maybe the same thing will happen for divots in the fairways!

What's the difference?

Because defining a divot that is interpreted the same by all is nearly impossible. 

[Another Steve]

14 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

And when does that damage no longer become ground under repair and must be played from? And how do you define it so that every golfer and rules official sees it the same way.

39 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

until the turf has healed to the point of being indistinguishable from the adjacent turf it shall be considered damaged and relief shall be allowed.

 

Edited February 6 by Another Steve

[downlowkey]

I think the answer to this imperfect turf dilemma is simple.

All amateur golfers should only be allowed to attempt the number of regulation tee-to-green strokes for a hole’s par designation, after which, you will retrieve your ball and place it ever so gently in the pre-marked center of each green. From there a maximum of two putts will be recorded, so don’t go leaving the first one short. Par will subsequently be the worst possible score recorded and no one will ever again be held to account for the randomness of playing outdoors on a natural surface. After all, regular tests of one’s grit are entirely overrated and there is absolutely zero research that suggests it pays dividends in all areas of a person’s life outside of golf, especially not when the practice is encountered during an individual’s formative years. I don’t think golf would be an less rewarding or meaningful under this system.

Before you go claiming that the suggestion outlined above would be an absurdly hollow shell of the game, I’d like you to first own the reality that almost every one of you that records net scores in either sanctioned tournaments or friendly matches is already engaging in an entirely delusional notion. As someone on the perpetually giving end of the stroke spectrum, I’ll be eternally grateful that we can finally abolish the handicap system and will no longer need to practice extricating myself from all manner of unenviable scenarios (ie - fried eggs, opposite hand, divots, etc.) just to get edged out again by an 18 hcp who took one less putt than usual.

So tee it up everywhere for all I care and be sure to grease up that driver face while you’re at it, but from now on, you and me only play straight up. Seeing as individual perceptions of fairness is at the heart of the divot debate, no more net scoring sounds pretty fair, right? 

[DaveP043]

34 minutes ago, ShimmyCocoBop said:

Food for thought...

I never thought it would happen, but the rules did change to allow spike marks, etc., to be repaired on the greens so that players can have a premium line to the hole.

Maybe the same thing will happen for divots in the fairways!

What's the difference?

The location.  You still can't repair a pitch mark, spike mark, or any other damage in the General Area if it improves the Conditions Affecting the Stroke.  Just as you are not allowed to lift your ball at will, or clean it, just as accidental movement of your ball is penalized in most cases.  I would expect all of those rules to be revised at some point in the future, but I'll be astounded if I'm alive to see it happen.  

[Another Steve]

Ricky  you couldn't see that it was an example comparing the turf condition in the tee box where you would find similar divots that you would not willingly play out of, to a similar shot played from the fairway where you are obliged to play from if you are unfortunate to find your ball in it…. Nothing more, and had nothing to do with any defined areas of the golf course ….

 

[fixyurdivot]

32 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

And when does that damage no longer become ground under repair and must be played from? And how do you define it so that every golfer and rules official sees it the same way.

 

Theres no loose definition for what a loose impeding or a moveable object is. Only those who wish to not suffer a possible higher score due to a bad break, just like those not wanting to take an unplayable for a situation that in unfavorable to their health or condition of their club.

 

So literally, were a player popular enough to get a decorative boulder the size of a volkswagon and that's been in the same position since the day the course opened, moved by his/her fans, that's what was intended by the rule makers?

Is this now considered a monument as opposed to a loose impediment... can it still be moved?

Am I the only one who would love to see this scenario happen at Augusta National .

34 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

  1 hour ago, Another Steve said:

until the turf has healed to the point of being indistinguishable from the adjacent turf it shall be considered damaged and relief shall be allowed.

Not a bad start.  The bottom-line is that if there is will to make the change, there is a way.  I mean most are able to distinguish the fairway proper from the first and second cut of rough, yet some argue that there is no way to determine what is or isn't a divot. 

[Wheelieb]

In the league I played in two years ago, the course was getting ready to be sold so there were plenty of divots in the fairways. We were told at the beginning that "it was discretion of the opposing team if free relief was to be granted". Some divots were deep enough that a ball was barely visible, others were only a little bit of grass was gone. I feel like that was fine. If we are going out to play recreationally and no money involved, move your ball because we are not Tiger.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Another Steve said:

Devil’s advocate Trying for a Definition of divot:

ANY fairway turf that has been damaged by a club while striking a ball - commonly called a divot - shall be considered damaged turf when the area of disturbed ground can be distinguished from the adjacent turf IN ANY WAY.
Regardless of whether it has been filled with sand/seed or any attempt to repair/replace the disturbed turf has been made, until the turf has healed to the point of being indistinguishable from the adjacent turf it shall be considered damaged and relief shall be allowed.

 

"This grass looks a little yellow, must be an old divot.  I'll just place it on this nice tuft."

"Yeah, its sitting OK, but I'm SURE there was a divot here before."

"Balls always settle to the bottom of this small swale, has to be an old divot, I'll move it to the level area."

 

[golfinnut]

It's a different story if you look at the guys on TV .... they play in lush fairways, manicured better than my lawn.  So IMO, that should only apply to the Pro's.  If you saw some of the fairways that I play out of, then you would know why I tend to roll the ball.   

If I played in those type of fairways & courses all the time, I would play by every rule in the rule book.  It makes a huge difference if you ask me.  The game is hard enough as it is for us general hackers, give us some credit for actually hitting the fairway once in a while.  Nothing would frustrate me more to say "yay, I finally hit a fairway" only to find it in a cavern left by Bigfoot.  So yeah ... move it out of a divot.  

[Another Steve]

20 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

"This grass looks a little yellow, must be an old divot.  I'll just place it on this nice tuft."

"Yeah, its sitting OK, but I'm SURE there was a divot here before."

"Balls always settle to the bottom of this small swale, has to be an old divot, I'll move it to the level area."

 

As with everything in life - we all know what is fair and equitable (just like we know what the meaning if “is” is …. And yes, he did have sex with that woman…….) but that always gets ruined by a “rules lawyer” or a gambler looking for an advantage. 

[fixyurdivot]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

"This grass looks a little yellow, must be an old divot.  I'll just place it on this nice tuft."

"Yeah, its sitting OK, but I'm SURE there was a divot here before."

"Balls always settle to the bottom of this small swale, has to be an old divot, I'll move it to the level area."

 

"This looks to be on the green, just a visual oddity"

"You didn't place the ball back in the same exact same spot after marking it"

Many of the rules involve a level of interpretation.  These type statements can always be argued. The playing out of divots in the fairway debate has been going on for quite some time and there seems to be enough who feel it's a rule worth changing.

[downlowkey]

55 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

So literally, were a player popular enough to get a decorative boulder the size of a volkswagon and that's been in the same position since the day the course opened, moved by his/her fans, that's what was intended by the rule makers?

Is this now considered a monument as opposed to a loose impediment... can it still be moved?

I remember watching the Tiger boulder relocation effort play out live and was on the edge of my seat about a different factor than whether it was humanly possible. @DaveP043 can correct me if I’m mistaken, but if any of the ground surface plane had been appreciably broken by the underside of that boulder, Tiger was going to be assessed two extra strokes for altering line of play. Impediments of the variety that I personally think the spirit of the Rule 15 was directed can be touched lightly to judge whether they are embedded. No way Tiger could have known for sure whether that boulder was embedded until it was relocated and I subsequently thought he took a huge gamble.

I do think the loose impediment definition could use a clarification from the current “easily moved” language to “can the impediment be moved laterally on the surface plane without it first being moved vertically?” Because I don’t think that group of spectators could have interrupted that boulder’s Inertia of Rest without lifting it off the ground and updated language could have potentially protected that “spirit of the rules” scenario.

[DaveP043]

12 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

The playing out of divots in the fairway debate has been going on for quite some time and there seems to be enough who feel it's a rule worth changing.

I'd say that there are a large number who think the rule should remain as it is.  And for better or for worse, its not up for a vote, the very knowledgeable folks at the USGA and R&A are the ones who evaluate the situation.  They DID specifically evaluate this prior to the 2019 revisions.  

11 minutes ago, downlowkey said:

I remember watching the Tiger boulder relocation effort play out live and was on the edge of my seat about a different factor than whether it was humanly possible. @DaveP043 can correct me if I’m mistaken, but if any of the ground surface plane had been appreciably broken by the underside of that boulder, Tiger was going to be assessed two extra strokes for altering line of play.

I think the Rule about improving conditions was written similarly way back then to the way it is now.  Considering that Tiger was likely to hit a shot in the air, its unlikely that changing the ground surface in that area would have  been seen as "improving".  This was in Rule 13-1 in the 2000 edition of the Rules.  

[downlowkey]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think the Rule about improving conditions was written similarly way back then to the way it is now.  Considering that Tiger was likely to hit a shot in the air, its unlikely that changing the ground surface in that area would have  been seen as "improving".  This was in Rule 13-1 in the 2000 edition of the Rules.  

What about the current impediment language re: loose -vs- embedded and subsequent penalty for breach? I know that the underside of that boulder didn’t break the plane, but if it had, you’re saying no penalty in 2000 edition for moving embedded object? Not arguing, just curious and you’re the man to ask.

[DaveP043]

11 minutes ago, downlowkey said:

What about the current impediment language re: loose -vs- embedded and subsequent penalty for breach? I know that the underside of that boulder didn’t break the plane, but if it had, you’re saying no penalty in 2000 edition for moving embedded object? Not arguing, just curious and you’re the man to ask.

Both the current and the 2000 Definition of Loose  Impediment exclude things that are not "solidly embedded".  Not just sitting in a depression, but "solidly" embedded.  That might be a little gray area, but that particular boulder was clearly resting on the surface, not embedded into it.  At least in my memory, which my wife tells me sucks.

Edited February 6 by DaveP043

[downlowkey]

16 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The 2000 Definition of Loose  Impediment included the phrase " are not solidly embedded".  Not just sitting in a depression, but "solidly" embedded.  That might be a little gray area, but that particular boulder was clearly resting on the surface, not embedded into it.  At least in my memory, which my wife tells me sucks.

I have a good memory, completely agree that boulder did not meet the definition of embedded, and as a Tiger fan, was relieved to see that after it was moved.

I’m asking about a hypothetical scenario in which it was plainly evident that it was embedded after it was moved. Furthermore, I still think my suggestion above re: plane movement potential (lateral prior to vertical) would be an improvement over the current “easily moved” language.

We are in agreement that the USGA carefully deliberates about all language and definitions, but this is one of those subjects that I personally think a more detailed procedure to determine loose -vs- embedded is potentially warranted. You can temporarily move your ball to determine whether it’s embedded and that’s understandable. But to my knowledge, you can’t move a rock, realize it’s embedded and then replace it without penalty. That’s a roll of the dice aspect of moving objects in your area of play.

Edited February 6 by downlowkey

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, Another Steve said:

Ricky  you couldn't see that it was an example comparing the turf condition in the tee box where you would find similar divots that you would not willingly play out of, to a similar shot played from the fairway where you are obliged to play from if you are unfortunate to find your ball in it…. Nothing more, and had nothing to do with any defined areas of the golf course ….

 

They are in two different area of the course so the rules apply differently. Just like as Dave mentioned you can repair spike marks on the greens but not in the general area. So when you are ready to discuss the rules let me know and not throw out some random well these are similar course conditions.

Just like there’s a different rules for a yellow penalty area and a red one yet they may be around water

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, downlowkey said:

But to my knowledge, you can’t move a rock, realize it’s embedded and then replace it without penalty.

Rule 8.1c(1) tells you how to avoid a penalty in that situation.  Basically, you move the rock back.  Its a little bit of interpretation, in that the embedded rock doesn't fit any of the basic definitions, but I think it does fall under the category of "growing or attached natural object".