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

[fixyurdivot]

35 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

55 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.  

I didn't say there wasn't any support for keeping the current rule, just that this debate has been going on for quite some time and there is considerable support for making a change.  Interestingly, there is minority support for the ball rollback applied to non-professional players, but they pressed forward in spite of that.

In the end, folks/groups will play non-sanctioned events in the manner they choose. If LC&P, move from fairway divots, play pre rollback balls, or other deviations makes sense to them and improves enjoyment of the game, that's what they'll do.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour 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?

The popularity has nothing to do wtih it. Anyone who was in the field could have done the same thing, assuming they were smart enough to know the rules. Using the rules to one’s advantage is a bonus. It’s why you see guys strategically planning their relief and using the rules to gain the best possible option within the rules.

Would the course commemorate it to someone who was ranked let’s say 125 in the world if they did that? Probably not but it doesn’t change the fact it was within the rules of golf. 
 

Under its current designation it can’t be moved,  but just like before that’s part of the rules of golf. Not much different than if a course decided to change what used to be OB to now a red penalty area. Doesn’t take away the results prior to the change but rather results in different options now

[DaveP043]

12 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

In the end, folks/groups will play non-sanctioned events in the manner they choose. If LC&P, move from fairway divots, play pre rollback balls, or other deviations makes sense to them and improves enjoyment of the game, that's what they'll do.

Amen, and I fully endorse that.  As much as I value the Rules, and try to play within them as best I can, I don't care what other people choose to do most of the time.  Its only when we compete against one another that the Rules become critical.  Personally, I think its easiest to simply play by the rules, rather than defining which rules are going to be "modified" for todays play.  But that's just me.

[downlowkey]

15 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

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".  

I always believed “growing or attached natural object” was primarily directed at rooted vegetation. For example - although a plant may be clearly dead, if it’s still in any way “attached” to its root structure, it does not meet the definition of loose. Meaning, if you brush aside a tuft of vegetation and snap the single remaining dead root connection, you have moved an attached natural object in such a way that the original conditions cannot be effectively restored. But if you realize it’s still tenuously attached in the process but don’t snap the root, it may be possible to sufficiently restore the original conditions.

I could argue that a rock that was determined to be embedded after movement and then replaced in its depression may “resemble” the original conditions but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s a restoration. The rock in this scenario almost certainly won’t have the same Inertia of Rest before removal and after replacement.

I’ve seen this play out a number of times where tour officials are called in on bunker face scenarios and the player and official painstakingly assess each individual rock prior to effective movement and the official will often say not to move a particular rock because it “may” be embedded. If the committee, as a general rule, operates under a limited framework that assumes replacing an embedded rock is likely sufficient to restore the original conditions, why would the official advise a player who is trying to make certain that they are taking full advantage of permitted relief, against moving a particular rock to avoid penalty? Is it the fragile nature of the surrounding packed sand in the bunker face scenario? Or is it a different interpretation for that area of play?

 

 

 

 

 

[DaveP043]

25 minutes ago, downlowkey said:

I always believed “growing or attached natural object” was primarily directed at rooted vegetation. For example - although a plant may be clearly dead, if it’s still in any way “attached” to its root structure, it does not meet the definition of loose. Meaning, if you brush aside a tuft of vegetation and snap the single remaining dead root connection, you have moved an attached natural object in such a way that the original conditions cannot be effectively restored. But if you realize it’s still tenuously attached in the process but don’t snap the root, it may be possible to sufficiently restore the original conditions.

I could argue that a rock that was determined to be embedded after movement and then replaced in its depression may “resemble” the original conditions but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s a restoration. The rock in this scenario almost certainly won’t have the same Inertia of Rest before removal and after replacement.

I’ve seen this play out a number of times where tour officials are called in on bunker face scenarios and the player and official painstakingly assess each individual rock prior to effective movement and the official will often say not to move a particular rock because it “may” be embedded. If the committee, as a general rule, operates under a limited framework that assumes replacing an embedded rock is likely sufficient to restore the original conditions, why would the official advise a player who is trying to make certain that they are taking full advantage of permitted relief, against moving a particular rock to avoid penalty? Is it the fragile nature of the surrounding packed sand in the bunker face scenario? Or is it a different interpretation for that area of play?

When I review the 5 things in 8.1a that you're not allowed to do, the only one that seems to me to apply is moving an attached natural object (8.1a(1)).  Its not a Loose Impediment because it is, for our current conversation, firmly embedded.  Embedded seems consistent with attached.   Moving a boulder doesn't really strike me as "altering the ground surface", its nothing to do with sand or loose soil, or with dew, frost, or water.

Once I come to that conclusion, I look to 8.1c, which talks about restoring conditions to avoid a penalty, but only for breaches of 8.1a(1) and 8.1a(2).  Its probably impossible to restore conditions to be identical to the original, but that's not what the rule requires.  You avoid the penalty by "restoring the original object as nearly as possible to its original position so that the improvement created by the breach is eliminated."  Two key elements are here, first "as nearly as possible", secondly "improvement is eliminated".  We moved a rock out of the intended path of the ball, I believe the Improvement can be effectively eliminated by moving it back.  Improvement of the Conditions Affecting the Stroke is an important part of Rule 8.1a, eliminating the improvement is a important part of avoiding a penalty through 8.1c.

The other way to look at this is that by moving the boulder, the player is actually "altering the ground surface", violating 8.1a(3), in which case the penalty cannot be avoided.  

Without seeing the specific circumstances that you talk about on the bunker face, I won't offer an opinion as to what their concerns were.  

[Stuka44]

On 2/6/2024 at 10:45 AM, 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. 

I would submit as it was intended golf was to be enforced by the player, and his playing partners.  I would submit that a player in a divot could rather quickly have his playing partners look at his ball, and determine if they agree it is a "divot" created by the strike of a club.  If no majority can be reached call an official.  If the players can't be trusted to do the right thing where each other are concerned, then what's the point.

I believe that rather quickly whiners trying to push the envelop on things which "CLEARLY"  are not divots created by the strike of the club, would find "word spreading like wildfire" throughout the tour as to their antics, and in the long run it would be detrimental to them to try and claim something "questionable" as a divot.  And if they would maliciously, and purposefully try to help out their "buddies"  then  maybe that's something that should be brought to light.  And this could rather easily for how often I think it would come up be reviewed.  Not that there wouldn't be zoomed in 1000 times TV angles of it, but an official could snap on auto shutter, 50 pictures in 5 seconds to be used as a review, for loss of money, or fed ex cup points, whatever, again if word gets around that some players are getting to liberal with their judging.

The rules of golf aren't perfect, if they were there would NEVER  have been ANY changes.  That's OK, non-perfection of their rules is something golf needs to embrace a little more readily.  Doesn't have to be a PERFECT RULE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING!  Just needs to be the very best they can come up with, in order to remedy, a known, predictable, expected codified disadvantage that some are going to be increasingly  subjected to, and others less so, or not at all.

Edited February 8 by Stuka44

[DaveP043]

12 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

If the players can't be trusted to do the right thing where each other are concerned, then what's the point.

Wasn't it Jimmy Walker who said sometimes a Player will (silently) leave his ball in a position to backstop for a friend, but be sure to lift it when someone else is involved?  They can NOT be trusted to enforce this kind of rule, because they know the shoe will be on the other foot sometimes.

The Rule is fine as it is, its simple, its enforceable, its clear.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

59 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

I would submit that a player in a divot could rather quickly have his playing partners look at his ball, and determine if they agree it is a "divot" created by the strike of a club.  If no majority can be reached call an official.  If the players can't be trusted to do the right thing where each other are concerned, then what's the point.

But that needs to be applicable to all golfers keeping a handicap. If my definition or determination is different from somebody else then the rule isn’t applied equally across the board. It’s why those who aren’t in support of this change point out when is a divot no longer a divot and how is that defined so everyone agrees

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

how is that defined so everyone agrees

I'd go a little further, there needs to be a clear and enforceable criteria.  When the healing process of a divot is so gradual, taking weeks at minimum, its virtually impossible to have a clear criteria.  

Just to refresh my memory, I went back to a document released in 2018 about the proposed changes for 2019, which included a little about this specific issue, and some more general discussion of rules changes.  Other folks might find it interesting:

https://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/text/not-addressed.html

In particular, I like the information in Item 5, about criteria used when evaluating new rules proposals.

[RickyBobby_PR]

14 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'd go a little further, there needs to be a clear and enforceable criteria.  When the healing process of a divot is so gradual, taking weeks at minimum, its virtually impossible to have a clear criteria.  

Just to refresh my memory, I went back to a document released in 2018 about the proposed changes for 2019, which included a little about this specific issue, and some more general discussion of rules changes.  Other folks might find it interesting:

https://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/text/not-addressed.html

In particular, I like the information in Item 5, about criteria used when evaluating new rules proposals.

Good article and I agree item 5 is good. Explains a lot and really shows why changing the rule for divot hole relief doesn’t match that criteria.

I like item 2 as well as it gets into the fundamental of golf and playing the ball as it lies. Any changes to that fundamental can’t be the norm. And lastly in that section we as golfers have to accept the good and the bad. If we are going to give relief from the bad then we need to find a way to undo the good break 

[Stuka44]

10 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

But that needs to be applicable to all golfers keeping a handicap. If my definition or determination is different from somebody else then the rule isn’t applied equally across the board. It’s why those who aren’t in support of this change point out when is a divot no longer a divot and how is that defined so everyone agrees

IMO there are a couple things with this.  First if someone is moving their ball out of everything, that even remotely resembles an actual club made divot, then for the  minority, compared to most of us who just keep a handicap as a "very loose comparison tool", who actually use their handicap in some sort of competition, wouldn't it be to the "loose interpretation golfers" detriment when he was forced to play off of something that his playing partners deemed was just barren ground, and not a club made divot.

Secondly I believe this is a "golf" problem not something you are saying, that the game of golf will utterly collapse if EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.  It further goes back to believing that golf is somehow "better" than other sports.  Soccer has endured without a tracker in the ball and on every players shoes to determine with 100 percent computer driven accuracy if offsides has occurred.  While they are looking at robots to call balls and strikes, Baseball Umpires judge balls and strikes slightly differently, but it has endured.  Football which is refereed, very poorly IMO, by guys doing the best they can is the most popular sport in this country.

They make the best rules they can, described as best they can, to make the game as fair as possible.  And what happens when a player or referee or someone involved with the game shaves points, bets, or makes bad calls purposely, or uses drugs.  They get banned for seasons, or for life.   Ask Pete Rose, or Josh Gordon (Browns receiver 2015ish).  

[cnosil]

29 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'd go a little further, there needs to be a clear and enforceable criteria.  When the healing process of a divot is so gradual, taking weeks at minimum, its virtually impossible to have a clear criteria.  

Great point.  I also think the difficulty with that clear enforceable criteria is grass type.  Some grasses the divot is a pelt of grass that can be replaced and pressed back into place versus bermuda which cannot be replaced and generally gets sand filled.   

[RickyBobby_PR]

34 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

IMO there are a couple things with this.  First if someone is moving their ball out of everything, that even remotely resembles an actual club made divot, then for the  minority, compared to most of us who just keep a handicap as a "very loose comparison tool", who actually use their handicap in some sort of competition, wouldn't it be to the "loose interpretation golfers" detriment when he was forced to play off of something that his playing partners deemed was just barren ground, and not a club made divot.

It would, just like it’s to the detriment of those with vanity caps.

But that still doesn’t support the argument I was replying to. The criteria that determines what gets relief and don’t has the be applied equally by all those keeping handicaps. All current rules allow that to be the case. It’s too complicated of a decision that can be written that avoids confusion and doesn’t add time in making a decision. 
 

34 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

Secondly I believe this is a "golf" problem not something you are saying, that the game of golf will utterly collapse if EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.  It further goes back to believing that golf is somehow "better" than other sports.  Soccer has endured without a tracker in the ball and on every players shoes to determine with 100 percent computer driven accuracy if offsides has occurred.  While they are looking at robots to call balls and strikes, Baseball Umpires judge balls and strikes slightly differently, but it has endured.  Football which is refereed, very poorly IMO, by guys doing the best they can is the most popular sport in this country.

You can’t compare team sports with an individual sport. Will the game of golf collapse if there were rules in place that allows a ball to not be played as it lies? Nope because we have those rules today and with those rules they are applied equally by those playing the game. Not much interpretation needed or confusion over what constitutes relief or not. I’m pretty sure those who are arguing to not give releif would be fine with a rule to give relief that is written so anyone playing the game knows what a divot that allows relief is and what isn’t allowed relief. The fact that the ruling bodies haven’t written lets us know it can’t be done in a manner that is simple and understood by everyone.

34 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

They make the best rules they can, described as best they can, to make the game as fair as possible.  And what happens when a player or referee or someone involved with the game shaves points, bets, or makes bad calls purposely, or uses drugs.  They get banned for seasons, or for life.   Ask Pete Rose, or Josh Gordon (Browns receiver 2015ish).  

And all those rules are clearly defined and understood by everyone playing. There are punishable rules in golf for breaking the rules. The same would apply if someone was cheating on what is relief from a divot if it was actually defined. But it can’t be defined so until that happens the concept of oaky it as it lies remains in effect.

If someone not keeping a handicap wants to take relief from a divot, roll their ball from a tree root, gravel, an uneven lie, breakfast balls or whatever other rules they want to create then great they can do that, no harm. If someone keeping an unofficial handicap wants to do the same cool go for it. The expectation for those keeping a handicap or playing in a tournament play under the same rules and understanding. One group can’t give relief from a divot that everyone in the group agrees to while in another group in the same tournament then it’s a problem and the field isn’t protected 

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, Stuka44 said:

Secondly I believe this is a "golf" problem not something you are saying, that the game of golf will utterly collapse if EVERYTHING IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.  It further goes back to believing that golf is somehow "better" than other sports.  Soccer has endured without a tracker in the ball and on every players shoes to determine with 100 percent computer driven accuracy if offsides has occurred.  While they are looking at robots to call balls and strikes, Baseball Umpires judge balls and strikes slightly differently, but it has endured.  Football which is refereed, very poorly IMO, by guys doing the best they can is the most popular sport in this country.

In a way this problem is very specific to golf, as compared to each of those other sports you mention.  In each of those other sports, some one else is making the judgements, not the players.  Golf is different, each player is responsible for making his own judgements.  That doesn't make golf inherently "better", but it clearly makes golf different.  Consequently, the rules of golf must be written to provide the most "black and white" criteria possible, so that there is the minimum possible "interpretation" required.  

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I’m pretty sure those who are arguing to not give releif would be fine with a rule to give relief that is written so anyone playing the game knows what a divot that allows relief is and what isn’t allowed relief. The fact that the ruling bodies haven’t written lets us know it can’t be done in a manner that is simple and understood by everyone.

Here I'll disagree, I don't think such a rule is needed or appropriate.  To me it would be a step too far from the basic principles, "play the course as you find it, play your ball as it lies." That is at least MY primary reason for opposing any change, the difficulty of effectively writing such a rule  is a secondary concern.

And before anyone points to numerous examples where we're not required to "play it as it lies", by and large those have evolved over the centuries as the game has expanded to different parts of the world, different soil conditions, agronomy has evolved, maintenance practices have evolved.  Its not that someone said "They thought this was OK before, but now we think its unfair, let's change it".  

Edited February 7 by DaveP043

[RangerGrey]

You should never be penalized for hitting a 300 yd. drive right down the middle of the fairway only to be in someones divot as the divot should have been repaired by the person who made it as I bet he didn't have to hit his ball out the divot. Golf has enough other stupid rules as that one is just ridiculous 

Edited February 7 by RangerGrey

[fixyurdivot]

7 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Good article and I agree item 5 is good. Explains a lot and really shows why changing the rule for divot hole relief doesn’t match that criteria.

I like item 2 as well as it gets into the fundamental of golf and playing the ball as it lies. Any changes to that fundamental can’t be the norm. And lastly in that section we as golfers have to accept the good and the bad. If we are going to give relief from the bad then we need to find a way to undo the good break 

Writing change criteria that supports the desired decision/outcome is a clever way to handle things .  Weren't you recently pointing out the USGA's clever use of driving distance data in support of the ball rollback?  Seems like they've got this drill down to a science.

The bottomline in this for me is that I think it unfair and unnecessary for players to hit from others fairway divots.  It just detracts from the game and penalizes the player for no fault of their own.  Great drive, sucks be you. 

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I'd go a little further, there needs to be a clear and enforceable criteria.  When the healing process of a divot is so gradual, taking weeks at minimum, its virtually impossible to have a clear criteria.

Challenging but not impossible. I think @Another Stevealready has the basis of defining a fairway divot... for the very low percentage that are not clearly divots and require a forensic team.

[RickyBobby_PR]

9 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

The bottomline in this for me is that I think it unfair and unnecessary for players to hit from others fairway divots.  It just detracts from the game and penalizes the player for no fault of their own.  Great drive, sucks be you

There is nothing fair in life or golf. Two golfers can hit the same tree and get two different results. That’s not fair but there’s nothing one can do about it.

its not fair one golfer can hit the ball farther than another. Its not fair that one golfer is a better putter than another.

its not fair that two golfers can hit the same flagstick and one could get the ball to go in and the other has their ball kick across the green.

Whats fair in golf is that we all play under the same rules and that there is confidence those keeping handicaps are playing by the same rules as the rest of those keeping handicaps. The rules are applied fairly for all golfers.

One has to accept the good and the bad. If someone wants perfect lies they can play in a simulator. The game of golf is meant to play the ball as it lies, good or bad

 One doesn’t have to play from a divot, they can declare it unplayable and move it within the rules of golf .

Lastly the number of times a golfer find themselves in a divot is very small. I can’t remember then last time I was in a divot

Edited February 8 by RickyBobby_PR

[fixyurdivot]

8 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

There is nothing fair in life or golf. Two golfers can hit the same tree and get two different results. That’s not fair but there’s nothing one can do about it.

its not fair one golfer can hit the ball farther than another. Its not fair that one golfer is a better putter than another.

its not fair that two golfers can hit the same flagstick and one could get the ball to go in and the other has their ball kick across the green.

Whats fair in golf is that we all play under the same rules and that there is confidence those keeping handicaps are playing by the same rules as the rest of those keeping handicaps. The rules are applied fairly for all golfers.

One has to accept the good and the bad. If someone wants perfect lies they can play in a simulator. The game of golf is meant to play the ball as it lies, good or bad

 One doesn’t have to play from a divot, they can declare it unplayable and move it within the rules of golf .

Lastly the number of times a golfer find themselves in a divot is very small. I can’t remember then last time I was in a divot

Hitting a tree and hitting from a divot on the fairway or differences in how far we each hit are hardly a good comparisons.  Your point about all playing to the same rules being fair is true.  And the rule regarding divots in fairways can and should be changed... long been a bone of contention...long overdue.  While we agree on the ball rollback, we disagree on this issue/debate.

#timetochangethefairwaydivotrule 

[RickyBobby_PR]

20 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Hitting a tree and hitting from a divot on the fairway or differences in how far we each hit are hardly a good comparisons.  Your point about all playing to the same rules being fair is true.  And the rule regarding divots in fairways can and should be changed... long been a bone of contention...long overdue.  While we agree on the ball rollback, we disagree on this issue/debate.

#timetochangethefairwaydivotrule 

It’s a good comparison because we have to take the good with the bad and it’s possible that two people despite distance differences can hit the same tree and get different results. You could be shorter and that tree is within reach and you hit it and get a bad break, I hit it with a bad swing and get a good result. Have had it happen with guys I play with who all hit it different distances.

the rule has been looked at and there isn’t a way that the ruling bodies can write to so that it clear and concise and that a can be interpreted the same by everyone including all rules officials. So if you have the rule that can be written to say what a divot is, when it’s not a divot and when relief can be taken I’m sure the ruling bodies would accept it.

[fixyurdivot]

1 minute ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

It’s a good comparison because we have to take the good with the bad and it’s possible that two people despite distance differences can hit the same tree and get different results. You could be shorter and that tree is within reach and you hit it and get a bad break, I hit it with a bad swing and get a good result. Have had it happen with guys I play with who all hit it different distances.

the rule has been looked at and there isn’t a way that the ruling bodies can write to so that it clear and concise and that a can be interpreted the same by everyone including all rules officials. So if you have the rule that can be written to say what a divot is, when it’s not a divot and when relief can be taken I’m sure the ruling bodies would accept it.

No, it really isn't.  In your case, the golfer makes a swing that does not avoid a tree - that's a known hazard.  In the case of the divot in the fairway, the golfer has no practical control of avoiding divots.  He/she made a good shot and gets penalized.  It's not about life's fair and unfair but making rules that improve the game - both the enjoyment and the ability to score when you make good shots.

If there was a will to make the rule change, they could find the verbiage... I have no doubt.  There was motivation and will to inact the ball rollback.  Their interests are that of their own exclusive club, not that of the majority of golfers around the globe.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

11 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

f there was a will to make the rule change, they could find the verbiage... I have no doubt.  There was motivation and will to inact the ball rollback.  Their interests are that of their own exclusive club, not that of the majority of golfers around the globe.  

Considering they made rule changes a few years back that as I stated in the distance thread were actually good updates and were one of their few wins, if there was a way to write the rule that could be easily applied by all golfers and rules officials they probably would have done it considering as Dave pointed out they have looked at the rule. 
 

Its been asked several times in all the threads for anyone supporting relief from a divot to write the clean and concise rule, to date nobody has because it’s impossible to state when a divot is no longer a divot that gets relief that everyone looking at it would agree. But it also gets away from the principle of play the ball as it lies. Once you get into divot relief and the debate over what is or isn’t a divot or what was a divot or some other abnormality with the ground you end up in what equates to preferred lies and that gets away from the principle of play it as it lies.

In the game of golf you have to take the good with the bad. Just as I pointed out with the flag stick scenario. Or we can use a sprinkler head. Hit a good shot it hits the sprinkler head and ends up in a bad lie or depending on the course out of play in a hazard or on, while someone else hits it and gets a good bounce. I’ll say it again there’s nothing fair in life or golf. 

 

[Another Steve]

I really feel that the USGA speaks with forked tongue. If they really want to actually mean what they say then there should be NO FREE RELIEF ANYWHERE……

 

Convince me that my opinion is wrong. 

[Stuka44]

15 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

There is nothing fair in life or golf. Two golfers can hit the same tree and get two different results. That’s not fair but there’s nothing one can do about it.

This is not talking about the same thing.  I pointed out earlier two players hitting the same tree, and the following result is the result of (not an exhaustive list) physics, speed, angle of approach at impact, diameter of the tree branch, denseness of bark, surface of bark, hitting leaves or other branches on the way out.  None of which are created by actions of the other player.

Life may not be fair you are 100% correct.  But rules for ANYTHING,  designed to make things fair for all involved.  If the player in front is not subject to playing out of the same number of divots as me, then this needs to be changed.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Another Steve said:

I really feel that the USGA speaks with forked tongue. If they really want to actually mean what they say then there should be NO FREE RELIEF ANYWHERE……

 

Convince me that my opinion is wrong. 

"Neither Trench, Ditch or Dyke, made for the preservation of the Links, nor the Scholar's Holes, or the Soldier's Lines, Shall be accounted a Hazard; But the Ball is to be taken out Teed and play’d with any Iron Club."

Free relief, 1744-style, rules by the Gentlemen Golfers of Leith, which became the Honorouble Company of Edinburgh Golfers.  Free relief from certain things has been a feature of golf rules since the very beginning of golf rules.

[RickyBobby_PR]

36 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

This is not talking about the same thing.  I pointed out earlier two players hitting the same tree, and the following result is the result of (not an exhaustive list) physics, speed, angle of approach at impact, diameter of the tree branch, denseness of bark, surface of bark, hitting leaves or other branches on the way out.  None of which are created by actions of the other player.

Life may not be fair you are 100% correct.  But rules for ANYTHING,  designed to make things fair for all involved.  If the player in front is not subject to playing out of the same number of divots as me, then this needs to be changed.

The rules as they stand are fair for all and there isn’t a rule to at can’t be written that would allow for the fair interpretation of what constitutes a divot and relief from it, so it would be unfair to leave it to the judgment of an individual in a group to say yeah you get relief from that when someone in another group ins the same tournament as an example wouldn’t because their playing partners or opponent determine it’s no longer a divot. 
 

So until a rule can be written that is fairly applied to all golfers across the world the rules as they stand for no relief from a divot is fair.

Again it’s almost baffling the complaints about something that rarely happens even at the pro level where many hit the ball into the same location. 
 

The best solution is learn how to hit the ball from a bad lie whether it’s a divot, hardpan, deep rough, side hill, uphill, downhill. 

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, Another Steve said:

I really feel that the USGA speaks with forked tongue. If they really want to actually mean what they say then there should be NO FREE RELIEF ANYWHERE……

 

Convince me that my opinion is wrong. 

Oh, and since you're so down on the USGA, lets look at some R&A rules from 1933, before they began coordinating with the USGA:

Quote

Rule 11

Removal of Obstructions
Any flag-stick, guidepost, implement, vehicle, bridge, bridge planking, seat, hut, shelter or similar obstruction may be removed. A ball moved in removing such an obstruction shall be lifted and dealt with as provided for in Rule 8 without penalty.

A ball lying on or touching such an obstruction, or lying on or touching clothes, or ground under repair, or a drain cover, hydrant, hydrant cover, or exposed water pipe, or lying in a hole made by the greenkeeper, may be lifted and dealt with as provided for in Rule 8 without penalty.

If the player’s stroke be interfered with by any such obstruction which is immovable and which is within two club lengths of his ball, the ball may be lifted and dropped or on the Putting Green placed not more than two club lengths from the obstacle, but not nearer to the hole, without penalty.

 

[Stuka44]

58 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

So until a rule can be written that is fairly applied to all golfers across the world the rules as they stand for no relief from a divot is fair.

 

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The rules as they stand are fair

So a player is ok to ask his playing partner to agree or disagree that his ball is imbedded, or in its own pitch mark, and take action according to their consensus(AND I AM SURE I WILL BE BERATED THOROUGHLY, if INCORRECT, and he is under no obligation to call a rules official). . . Now he can call a rules official to judge, and he must  certainly  follow the officials ruling, once called , but this judgement while final, may as a matter of fact be incorrect.  So this player may have just gotten a bad break factually, that another rules official may judge differently for a different player.

I appreciate yours, and Dave P's stance on this.  It may be the way IT IS, but that does not as a matter of fact MAKE IT,  FAIR, EQUITABLE, OR RIGHT!    So  in the long run (with the best definition humanly possible of what constitutes a divot, and when relief should, and shouldn't be given) it is "fairer and better" for the game to have someone play out of what is clearly a disintegrated beaver pelt gouge that others were not subject to, than for some whiner/cheater to be honestly told that what he believes is a divot is not, as judged by the best definition which can be come up with.  In the end when those of you who are playing in sanctioned events, with your handicaps in play, or for all of us just for  for fun.  Do you really think that the someone who would be willing to purposely CHEAT ABOUT A FOOTPRINT IN A BUNKER, OR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T CLEARLY A DIVOT, isn't cheating you and everyone else, in everyway possible, as much as he can.  Rules should not be made or not made because some may cheat, they should be made for honest players, who play and would judge if required to the best of their ability.  And purposeful cheaters when found, should be banned from the professional game, club championships, whatever the sanctioned even is,  forever.  Or in your weekend game, if it matters that much to you, disinvited forever.  I find the rationale,  "because some may purposely, and knowingly cheat or be dishonest" in a game where integrity and honesty are supposed to be paramount, sadly laughable.

As most are aware,  I am not a rules guru.  I find it funny, and I'm sure someone can tell me what rule this is.

Play by the Rules and in the spirit of the game.

You are responsible for applying your own penalties if you breach a Rule, so that you cannot gain any potential advantage over your opponent in match play or other players in stroke play.

 I find it very ironic, with these being 2/3 of the provisions of what I believe is Rule #1, of the GAME, that changes are not made to benefit honest, players, and players, who would judge things, as they believe them to be, to the best of their abilities,  in trying to follow the rules, because some people may blatantly cheat, and are going to be knowingly dishonest.

If you really read between the lines, and the rationale of the rules, and why things are and aren't changed, as I read the explanations , that it really doesn't say too awful much good, about players of the game, from my point of view.  We, can't have certain judgement calls on a (divot, or footprint in the bunker), by you,   an official or anyone else, because you will cheat, are dishonest, and will seek purposely to benefit yourself and your friends, over others.  

 

 

 

[cnosil]

31 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

 

So a player is ok to ask his playing partner to agree or disagree that his ball is imbedded, or in its own pitch mark, and take action according to their consensus(AND I AM SURE I WILL BE BERATED THOROUGHLY, if INCORRECT, and he is under no obligation to call a rules official). . . Now he can call a rules official to judge, and he must  certainly  follow the officials ruling, once called , but this judgement while final, may as a matter of fact be incorrect.  So this player may have just gotten a bad break factually, that another rules official may judge differently for a different player.

Yes,  players can assess the situation between themselves, they can call a rules official, and can even appeal the decision made by a rules official.   And yes it may be incorrect or different for another player, but the rules officials are trained on the rules and the black and white nature of the decisions.   

I think we all can define when something is a divot, but can you tell me when a divot stops being a divot for all grass types and divot repair techniques?

[DaveP043]

57 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

So a player is ok to ask his playing partner to agree or disagree that his ball is imbedded, or in its own pitch mark, and take action according to their consensus

Um..no, there is no consensus, no "vote", the player has a very specific criteria he needs to satisfy in determining whether his ball is Embedded or not.  He might ask them, he might ask for an official if he's unsure, but these things aren't subject to the approval of the others.  

1 hour ago, Stuka44 said:

We, can't have certain judgement calls on a (divot, or footprint in the bunker), by you,   an official or anyone else, because you will cheat, are dishonest, and will seek purposely to benefit yourself and your friends, over others

No, we don't want to have this level of "judgement calls" because its impossible to write a rule that's clear and specific enough to allow most people to come to the same judgement in nearly all circumstances.  Honest people WILL make different decisions about a specific lie of the ball, and that inconsistency is the opposite of fair.  

And once again, the specific decision by the R&A and USGA to NOT address divot relief is based primarily on the core principle of playing the ball as it lies.  The difficulty in writing an effective and enforceable rule is a separate, and less important, issue.  

[Stuka44]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

I think we all can define when something is a divot, but can you tell me when a divot stops being a divot for all grass types and divot repair techniques?

I understand your point, but the fact of the matter is that players do not have to summon a rules official for ANYTHING, therefore two players can theoretically agree to take all the liberties they want, and you 5 groups behind will be none the wiser.

Again with the potential, actual verifiable disadvantage that I face as the last person, compared to the first person, and the fact that if people are willing to cheat, or allow others to cheat, or disregard the best explanation of when relief should be given, and go against the "integrity" of the game, I have no control over that.  There is  almost nothing any golfer can do about golfers taking liberties, who are all good buddies 4 twosomes ahead in your club championship. If they are going to take liberties about what is a divot, and when a divot stops being a divot(again as best as it can be described), then WHO CARES, because guess what , they are cheating about everything else as well.

FURTHERMORE , I believe, AND NOW WE ARE ASSUMING ABSOLUTE HONESTY AND ABSOLUTE INTEGRITY BY EVERYONE PLAYING THE GAME.  If with ABSOLUTE INTEGRITY, AND HONESTY the two other golfers in the first threesome agreed that the 3rd, ball had come to rest in what based on their interpretation was a filling in divot, that based on their understanding of the rule, and description judged it still a  DIVOT.  Then I am 100% OK with that.

Because!  Assuming all 70 golfers in front of me hit fairways, and leave a divot for 18 holes, I have now had to dodge 980 Divots, that the first guy did not.  If he got a RULING  by his partners, on an HONEST CLOSE CALL.   ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC FOR HIM.  All I care about is that on the 18 hole when my ball come to rest in the  aforementioned, GRAND CANYON DEEP, BEAVER PELT GOUGE LEFT BY SOMEBODY IN FRONT OF ME, that my playing partners will  rightly, and honestly  grant me relief, and my chances of winning will not be  reduced(however slightly), because the course has been decimated with 70 divots, left on every hole by every golfer in front of me, through ABSOLUTELY NO FAULT OF MY OWN.  When with incrementally decreasing possibility, every golfer in front of me had FACTUALLY  reduced chance of finding the same bad lie. 

I AM 100%  in favor of such imperfect rule, because I can to nothing about CHEATERS!!!

Edited February 8 by Stuka44