Divot as a GUR

[wadesworld]

Back to this rule, I ask you Wade. If they changed this rule tomorrow and announced that divots were now GUR if in the fairway, would you defend the rule change or say its bad for the game, it slows it down, etc?

Thanks for that well-measured response JB.

There are several rules for which I don't particularly care. As examples, I've always been a bit uncomfortable at the penalty for disqualification for turning in an incorrect scorecard when the cause was a rule violation you didn't know you violated. Another one I thought was too strict was the penalty for disqualification for use of a training aid during a stipulated round (ala Julie Inkster). I also think the penalty of disqualification for use of an illegal tee is way too harsh. Fortunately, in the first two cases, the USGA has modified their penalties and in the last, I've never seen it happen.

Even in the cases of rules (or penalties) I don't like, I understand the reasoning behind them and that leads me to (perhaps begrudgingly) support them. I also admit I'm in the not common position of having to enforce the rules, and it doesn't do me or the players much good for me be running around saying "Yeah, this stupid rule says you have to play it as it lies. It's freaking ridiculous and just shows how out of touch the USGA is, but my hands are tied."

You'll be glad to know that when I do interact with members of the USGA in an appropriate setting, I do question them on the logic behind certain rules or penalties, and if I don't like the answer, I plead my side of why it should be modified. However, I'll be completely transparent in admitting that most of the time, their explanation brings up scenarios or consequences which I had not considered, and that often resolves my angst.

To address your specific question, if they were to change the rule to all divots are GUR, I would certainly express my fears about the number of arguments that would ensue and the potential rise in the number of requested rulings, but I would support the USGA in their decision and follow the new rule, both in my play and my refereeing.

(Also see my answer to Dan which I'm about to write)

 

[JB]

To address your specific question, if they were to change the rule to all divots are GUR, I would certainly express my fears about the number of arguments that would ensue and the potential rise in the number of requested rulings, but I would support the USGA in their decision and follow the new rule, both in my play and my refereeing.

So really what was said was correct. This has little to do with the rules being discussed for some, and more to do with support of the governing body, similar to the way people follow political parties. Thats fine and good, just as it is in politics, but the other side of it is, not everybody does that. Some believe that not everything should be blindly agreed to because the governing says. They may follow the rule because of need, but voicing dissatisfaction with the governing body over the rules is how voices are heard.

Not directed at you at all Wadesworld, but I was a bit taken a back to someone in a different rules thread, saying similar items, and while I am sure better intentions were meant, it comes off as "Obey or your a cheater" instead of lets discuss the opinions and options and why they may or may not make sense to adjust.

If the USGA was perfect in rulings, nothing would ever need to be changed.

 

[wadesworld]

All the more reason to have a separate rulebook for competitive play vs casual play.... and a pretty damn good sample of why I don't bother with local tournaments. Anyone taking the game that seriously that they'd try and screw someone out of a decent lie to win is not someone I'm interested in golfing with.



I've had conversations with plenty of people in various roles about rules like this, that focus primarily on the flexibility of opinion over an absolute, like a painted area for GUR vs a divot. Their stance has always been the most conservative as possible with regard to the rule having any form of flexibility, and I think that's an overly cautious way of going about this. The fewer calls to the clubhouse, the better.

What i think people lose out on when they rely heavily on the rulebook to dictate what makes sense, is a real lack of compassion for what can drive this game to be more enjoyable for the large percentage of golfers who are playing this game for fun, not for competition. I don't sympathize with those who police the rules of golf because you aren't ever going to please everyone, but I do think there needs to be some change to make the rules more attractive for the average golfer. They need to start with things like footprints in bunkers, and I strongly believe that divots (even the most loosely defined divots) should be played as GUR. Whether that's limited to non-tournament rounds or not because some tryhard is trying to get a leg up, I genuinely don't care.

(Warning: LONG post incoming)

The call for two rulebooks is one I don't understand.

I said in an earlier post that the USGA does care about the average golfer and growing the game. I'll stand behind that because every interaction I've had with anyone from the USGA backs that up.

However, from a Rules of Golf standpoint, they don't really care about a weekend foursome. Why? Because more often than not, it's not playing under the rules of golf. It's playing under the rules they feel like following, and ignoring the ones they don't. A scramble is the perfect example. Would most people say when you're playing a scramble you're playing golf? Of course. However, a scramble is not a recognized form of competition, so the USGA doesn't give the first care about what you do in your scramble and what rules you apply. It simply does not pertain to the rules of golf. It would encourage you to go out, make up whatever rules you want, and have fun.

The same thing applies for 99% of amateur tournaments. Does your club want to hold a "three-club tournament?" Knock yourself out. Want to hold a tournament where everyone rides around in carts and hits their ball like they're playing polo? As long as the superintendent is OK with it and it's not going to damage the course, go for it. The USGA would absolutely encourage any club to create whatever tournaments their membership finds enjoyable. The one stipulation would be that none of the rounds are posted for handicap purposes, because it's not golf played under the rules.

The purpose of the rules is to legislate a game in which in theory, everyone can compete on an equal playing field. A game where every handicap score posted is legitimate, and every tournament round played by exactly the same procedures. Now, we all know the reality is laughable, but that's the goal. And that's where the "purist" in me comes out. I believe there is great value in the concepts described in "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" and a singular set of rules should continue to support those principles.

To quote Tufts for one example:

"If there is one principle more basic than any of the rest, it must be that you play the course as you find it. This simply means that the player must accept the conditions he encounters during play and may not alter them to suit his convenience.

This principle is first established under Rule 13-1, but it is the rule that follows, Rule 13-2, which firmly nails down the fact the the ground and everything that grows or is fixed in it is is a part of the player's lie and must not be moved. Unfortunately, there is no rule in the book that is more frequently violated, and if this work carries the reader no further than the careful reading of Rule 13-2, it will have served a useful purpose.

The object of the rule is obvious. One of the great features of golf is that it tests the player's ability to execute a great assortment of strokes under a perplexing variety of conditions. Golf would cease to be a game of skill if the player were permitted to get the best of the conditions which confront him through their elimination rather than to overcome them by the expert execution of his stroke.

Golf, like life is full of breaks. It is a game of chance, one of its fascinations being in "the way the ball bounces." To be able to accept the breaks and still go on playing your game has always been one of the tests of the true champion, a test which is more important to meet successfully in golf than in any other sport. The acceptance of the conditions which the player finds on the course is, therefore, a vital part of the game."

Maybe I have some romanticized crotchety old Scotsman in me, but I support that principle for official golf competitions. Using the one set of rules we have, anyone in theory can put themselves to that test and measure themselves against others, whether playing as a 7-year-old junior, state amateur, mini-tour, PGA Tour or Senior Tour.

So why not have a relaxed rule book for amateurs? Again, to what ends? The USGA does not give a flip what you do in your church tournament or even your club championship. Roll the ball over, pull it out of divots. Drop OB as if a lateral hazard. Do whatever makes sense and is fun. Simply don't turn in the round for handicap purposes, or if you do, adjust your score appropriately for "holes not played under the rules of golf."

This is what perplexes me: the gnashing of teeth of over rules which aren't followed, or that you're free to violate if you feel it will make the game more fun. Just don't turn the round in, and it's all good. I do think it somewhat crazy to argue that people are staying away from golf because of certain rules. I have never in my life been with a new golfer who returned to tee during a casual round because they found their ball OB or demanded to hit their ball amongst a tangle of tree roots.

I can see the desire in softening some of the rules, so that when Jim posts his score after his round with his buddies, it actually is a valid score, rather than a "sort-of-valid score." But like Tufts, I fear valuable principles of the game would be lost. Yes, it would be more fun for the average golfer to be able to fluff his lies, pull the ball out of divots and drop where the ball went OB for a one-stroke penalty. His scores would be lower and he would feel better about himself and perhaps even the game of golf in general. But it would be detrimental to the higher forms of play. Yes, one could create two rule books, but then the golfer has to keep track of which one this particular tournament is following. I find it far better to say, "Here's the Rules of Golf. If your use case finds these unacceptable, modify them to your heart's content, just don't turn in the round or ask the the USGA to recognize it."

I hope this made sense and I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll cut it off now and see what additional discussion ensues.

 

[JB]

Ever noticed how so many other sports have different rules?
They tell us to play from appropriate tee boxes based on skill, why not rules?
Maybe we should just have one set of tees for everybody, that way everything is the same. I mean that, its not sarcastic, because if you can change that, you can have separate rules.

Wade, I will say you have contradicted yourself a bit there, even though I know where you were trying to go. You said they care about the average golfer and growing the game and then the next paragraph said they dont care about the weekend golfer. Thats a major disconnect, because they believe the weekend golfer is scramble and not playing by the rules. They dont understand growing the weekend golfer is and should be the most important thing they think about.

The idea to have one governing rule book is fine, when simplified, because frankly its convoluted and most people are not actually playing by the rules anyway. Why? its not because they dont want to, its because the rule book is absurdly over done. Nobody wants to take a course or read an entire book to understand something before even trying it to see if they like it....And it does keep people away.

The example of not returning to a tee is a perfect one. There are people on this forum that would call them "cheaters" and have. Did they break the rules? Sure did, but only because of how the courses are set up (going back is nearly impossible during a round at many courses). To think that a game that has more "subtle" rules than just about any other leisure activity and people cant or dont want to understand how that is holding up people from wanting to jump in is perplexing to me. And the funny part is the only people that dont seem to realize that are those associated (loosely or otherwise) with the governing body. But it does give off the label of stuffy and elitist to those not involved in the game and I completely understand it.

 

[wadesworld]

So really what was said was correct. This has little to do with the rules being discussed for some, and more to do with support of the governing body, similar to the way people follow political parties. Thats fine and good, just as it is in politics, but the other side of it is, not everybody does that. Some believe that not everything should be blindly agreed to because the governing says. They may follow the rule because of need, but voicing dissatisfaction with the governing body over the rules is how voices are heard.

Not directed at you at all Wadesworld, but I was a bit taken a back to someone in a different rules thread, saying similar items, and while I am sure better intentions were meant, it comes off as "Obey or your a cheater" instead of lets discuss the opinions and options and why they may or may not make sense to adjust.

If the USGA was perfect in rulings, nothing would ever need to be changed.

Agreed JB, and to be honest, I do sometimes struggle with some of the arguments.

For example, I'm quite sure there was a time when lift, clean, and place didn't exist. If you got mud on your ball, that was just too bad. Play through it. Today, lift, clean and place exists, and I believe should exist. Incidentally, I suspect it exists because of TV and the costs of cancelling an event.

Additionally, while I haven't researched it, I'm sure that being able to clean your ball on the green has not always been the case. Eventually though, the ruling bodies decided there was legitimate reason to allow such a procedure.

Change does happen, and most of the time, it's positive or at a minimum, done for a good reason. It should be noted that rules also sometimes change back. There have been several times when the USGA has implemented rule changes which seemed like a good idea at the time, but were found to be unworkable when put into real practice (aka serious tournaments).

So what's my reason for resistance to certain changes? Honestly it's difficult to quantify. It's just a desire to retain as many of the principles as possible for the official game of golf. Things can and do change, but I'm not sure they should change just because a change would be more convenient for the weekend golfer, especially when the weekend golfer is absolutely free to play however he wishes, as stated in previous posts. Nor am I sure they should change without long and careful study and testing for potential unintended consequences.

 

[UVaWahoo]

Regarding divots as GUR, my suggestion would be initially to give it local rule status or flexibility. The use of a laser or GPS is contingent upon local rule, removal of pebbles or rocks from sand bunkers is contingent upon local rules. If the tournament committee is silent, then no local rule exits, but the committee should have the option based on course conditions regarding divots among other factors. The committee should have that flexibility in keeping with the established rules of golf as a local rule option. When it just involves a casual round among friends, I'm hard pressed to see what's the big deal if divots are GUR.

 

[Fourputt]

So really what was said was correct. This has little to do with the rules being discussed for some, and more to do with support of the governing body, similar to the way people follow political parties. Thats fine and good, just as it is in politics, but the other side of it is, not everybody does that. Some believe that not everything should be blindly agreed to because the governing says. They may follow the rule because of need, but voicing dissatisfaction with the governing body over the rules is how voices are heard.

Not directed at you at all Wadesworld, but I was a bit taken a back to someone in a different rules thread, saying similar items, and while I am sure better intentions were meant, it comes off as "Obey or your a cheater" instead of lets discuss the opinions and options and why they may or may not make sense to adjust.

If the USGA was perfect in rulings, nothing would ever need to be changed.

To add to this discussion: Laying all of this at the feet of the USGA is unfair to them too. They have had to compromise more than they would like because the R&A is the one that usually digs in and resists many proposed changes. I was told that the reason the embedded ball rule only allows relief in "closely mowed areas" is because the R&A would not agree to relief "through the green". In most of the US, in most competitions, the local rule which also allows relief in the rough is enacted.

The same it true for electronic distance measuring devices (rangefinders and GPS). The USGA was for making them permissible by rule, and then allowing them to be prohibited on a case by case basis for specific competitions, but again the R&A would only agree to their use if it was allowed only by local rule. In the US, it's almost unheard of for the local rule to not be in effect to allow DMD's at any but the highest level competitions.

The tournament Men's Club I play in has both of those local rules in effect.

I don't know if there is any such issue with the divot situation. I've never heard any mention that didn't include the general acceptance of divot holes being a common condition (rather than abnormal ground) on the typical golf course, and the occurrence of a ball actually stopping in one being rare enough that it isn't considered a situation needful of further discussion at this time. It really comes down to the feeling of entitlement - players think they should be entitled to a good lie in the fairway, while the rules and the ruling bodies contend that the player should be playing the course as he finds it, and they feel that dealing with bad lies is just a part of the adventure.

 

[tequila4kapp]

I just accept this as part of "golf isn't fair" and play it down. Even though this rule is admittedly stupid, for whatever reason this doesn't especially bother me. Maybe I'm too busy being worked up by the new handicap posting rule :act-up:

 

[kensisland]

The example of not returning to a tee is a perfect one. There are people on this forum that would call them "cheaters" and have. Did they break the rules? Sure did, but only because of how the courses are set up (going back is nearly impossible during a round at many courses).

This hits home for me, and honestly made me really nervous to branch out and play with golfers from a golf forum. I have seen people speak out like JB/Canadan have done on other forums and they be accused of not planing the game of golf, but some bastard version ... cheaters, etc ...

I can say after playing with the local Az THP guys, it was NEVER an issue (thanks guys) ...

I appreciate this discussion ... for those say just "move it," and I do ... I think, why can't the golf governing bodies acknowledge the fact that a large percent of recreational golfers are doing just that ... but yet we are technically labeled "cheaters" by the sport I love so much ... and technically I am a cheater ... and according some people a whinier ...



(sorry I hope that made sense, I am not great at expressing myself via writing)

 

[Canadan]

This hits home for me, and honestly made me really nervous to branch out and play with golfers from a golf forum. I have seen people speak out like JB/Canadan have done on other forums and they be accused of not planing the game of golf, but some bastard version ... cheaters, etc ...

I can say after playing with the local Az THP guys, it was NEVER an issue (thanks guys) ...

I appreciate this discussion ... for those say just "move it," and I do ... I think, why can't the golf governing bodies acknowledge the fact that a large percent of recreational golfers are doing just that ... but yet we are technically labeled "cheaters" by the sport I love so much ... and technically I am a cheater ... and according some people a whinier ...


(sorry I hope that made sense, I am not great at expressing myself via writing)

It made perfect sense, and I'll respond with this;

I think in 2016 I will not play out of a single divot, but rather take the penalty strokes and inflate my handicap. I am sure that is a much better way of dealing with these 'rules' as they are -- But I'm also sure my playing partners won't enjoy me as a higher handicap!

 

[tequila4kapp]

I'm catching up...

To the discussion about bifurcated rules, heads up that we already play under different rules. See riding in carts and use of lasers.

 

[JB]

It made perfect sense, and I'll respond with this;

I think in 2016 I will not play out of a single divot, but rather take the penalty strokes and inflate my handicap. I am sure that is a much better way of dealing with these 'rules' as they are -- But I'm also sure my playing partners won't enjoy me as a higher handicap!

I said the same thing about playing it last year. Let me tell you how enjoyable it was to play as a 9.
People struggled when as a 9 I shot 4 rounds in a row under 75, but rules are rules. I told them to thank the USGA.

 

[CBaker]

It made perfect sense, and I'll respond with this;

I think in 2016 I will not play out of a single divot, but rather take the penalty strokes and inflate my handicap. I am sure that is a much better way of dealing with these 'rules' as they are -- But I'm also sure my playing partners won't enjoy me as a higher handicap!

Lol, imagine Dan as a 5. net 60's every round?

 

[Canadan]

I said the same thing about playing it last year. Let me tell you how enjoyable it was to play as a 9.
People struggled when as a 9 I shot 4 rounds in a row under 75, but rules are rules. I told them to thank the USGA.

yep, I think this is the year. Everything by the books, including no gimmes or Sunday breakfast balls. We'll see what the new cap is by August.

 

[Canadan]

Lol, imagine Dan as a 5. net 60's every round?

Dan as a five means four favorable lies to still net par per round!

 

[Fourputt]

It made perfect sense, and I'll respond with this;

I think in 2016 I will not play out of a single divot, but rather take the penalty strokes and inflate my handicap. I am sure that is a much better way of dealing with these 'rules' as they are -- But I'm also sure my playing partners won't enjoy me as a higher handicap!

I seriously doubt that the times you have to play from a divot will be frequent enough to have any appreciable effect on your handicap. If you are like me, then those times are rare, and the number of times that I play a bad shot from a divot is even more rare. I found that it's rarely a problem because except in extreme circumstances, it's not that much harder to play the shot.

I said the same thing about playing it last year. Let me tell you how enjoyable it was to play as a 9.
People struggled when as a 9 I shot 4 rounds in a row under 75, but rules are rules. I told them to thank the USGA.

Why would your play be any different? I don't really understand this. If you play by the rules in non competition rounds, and you play by the rules in competition rounds, there shouldn't be any difference at all, aside from normal variance. If you shoot 4 consecutive rounds under 75 then those rounds would all apply to your handicap and it will be lower on the next revision to reflect that excellent play.

 

[sposey013168]

As long as I can still hole out on you from the fairway I am good

yep, I think this is the year. Everything by the books, including no gimmes or Sunday breakfast balls. We'll see what the new cap is by August.

 

[Canadan]

I seriously doubt that the times you have to play from a divot will be frequent enough to have any appreciable effect on your handicap. If you are like me, then those times are rare, and the number of times that I play a bad shot from a divot is even more rare. I found that it's rarely a problem because except in extreme circumstances, it's not that much harder to play the shot.

I guess time will tell. I'm betting I'll be up at least an extra stroke or two by following all the rules in absolute.

Why would your play be any different? I don't really understand this. If you play by the rules in non competition rounds, and you play by the rules in competition rounds, there shouldn't be any difference at all, aside from normal variance. If you shoot 4 consecutive rounds under 75 then those rounds would all apply to your handicap and it will be lower on the next revision to reflect that excellent play.

1 - Gotta love the impact of course rating
2 - Gotta love gimmes in competition
3 - Gotta love penalties for moving balls out of divots/footprints/roots/etc -- Easy to add a few strokes on per round.

 

[Fourputt]

I guess time will tell. I'm betting I'll be up at least an extra stroke or two by following all the rules in absolute.



1 - Gotta love the impact of course rating
2 - Gotta love gimmes in competition
3 - Gotta love penalties for moving balls out of divots/footprints/roots/etc -- Easy to add a few strokes on per round.

But if you do those same things in competition, then it's a wash. I've been playing exactly that way for more than 25 years. I don't win excessively in competition, nor do I get beaten excessively. I also don't play slowly just because I play by the rules. I also do fudge it on occasion when a ball is unexpectedly lost and I failed to play a provisional ball and the course is too crowded to go back to the tee. But in such cases I mark my score as prescribed by the handicap manual. Just because I advocate playing by the rules, I'm not a complete idiot.

By the way the only allowable gimmes in competition are in match play. For handicap reporting you are still supposed to return the most likely score that you would have made had you finished from the point where the stroke was conceded. If your opponent is out of the hole while you are still 30 feet from the hole lying 2 and he concedes, your proper score to return for handicap would be 4, not 3, unless you are the best putter in the history of the game.

 

[Borss]

No relief from any. Just a bad break.

 

[ntanygd760]

I'm catching up...

To the discussion about bifurcated rules, heads up that we already play under different rules. See riding in carts and use of lasers.

Plus the PGA loves lift clean and cheat when conditions warrant. Pretty sure the USGA hates that, do they ever play the US AM using it or anything even if wet?

 

[Spivey]

It made perfect sense, and I'll respond with this;

I think in 2016 I will not play out of a single divot, but rather take the penalty strokes and inflate my handicap. I am sure that is a much better way of dealing with these 'rules' as they are -- But I'm also sure my playing partners won't enjoy me as a higher handicap!

But if you are playing the ball "as it lies", then are you truly inflating your handicap?

At my club, where I keep a mandatory handicap (for all club events, you need to have an official handicap), everyone plays the ball "as it lies". There have been articles about lies and approved (generally not) relief, per local rules and per the Rules of Golf. So I play it down. If that means hitting out of a footprint, divot, cactus, bush, wash, etc., then I do (or I take appropriate relief).

I do not see the divot argument as anything other than that - good shot, bad result. It happens, infrequently (to me) enough that I don't really get fired up about it.

 

[Canadan]

But if you are playing the ball "as it lies", then are you truly inflating your handicap?

At my club, where I keep a mandatory handicap (for all club events, you need to have an official handicap), everyone plays the ball "as it lies". There have been articles about lies and approved (generally not) relief, per local rules and per the Rules of Golf. So I play it down. If that means hitting out of a footprint, divot, cactus, bush, wash, etc., then I do (or I take appropriate relief).

I do not see the divot argument as anything other than that - good shot, bad result. It happens, infrequently (to me) enough that I don't really get fired up about it.

You read it wrong.

I won't be playing out of divots or footprints this year. I'll be enjoying the penalty strokes in only non-competitive rounds.

 

[JB]

But if you are playing the ball "as it lies", then are you truly inflating your handicap?

At my club, where I keep a mandatory handicap (for all club events, you need to have an official handicap), everyone plays the ball "as it lies". There have been articles about lies and approved (generally not) relief, per local rules and per the Rules of Golf. So I play it down. If that means hitting out of a footprint, divot, cactus, bush, wash, etc., then I do (or I take appropriate relief).

I do not see the divot argument as anything other than that - good shot, bad result. It happens, infrequently (to me) enough that I don't really get fired up about it.

Do you believe you know every single rule in the rule book and follow them all to a T?
Genuine question.

 

[ntanygd760]

I would like to think I know most of them. In a casual round I have no problem with winter rules or preffered lies if the conditions warrant it. You won't find me ever hitting off a root unless I am in a tournament or something. I move it off and or check the ground for them with no penalty stroke. Not worth a broken wrist. Sometimes if I am playing alone in fall I might go as far :gasp:to take a free drop when I am in the middle of a leaf filled fairway and can't find my ball and don't feel like spending 4 minutes finding it in the middle of the fairway.