Relief from Divot Rule?

Sure. Ground under repair is ground that is literally under repair. The grounds crew has laid new sod, are installing new irrigation, etc. Or, it's an area of the course that has degraded so much due to weather conditions the grounds crew considers it unworthy of play and/or needs traffic kept off of it. Finally, it can also surround something like a fallen tree that the grounds crew hasn't had time to remove. In short, it defines areas of the course from which the grounds crew would rather you not play.

Divots are not unexpected on a golf course. They are not unnatural - meaning they're not an artificial object.

But, but, but - people will respond "why do we allow raking of bunkers and and repair of the green?" The bunker is only allowed to be raked after the shot is played. If another golfer leaves a huge footprint or (within reason) weather effects makes the shot difficult, you have to deal with it. The green is allowed to be repaired primarily for its protection and because it's intended to be a non-cratered surface on which to roll the ball. Spike marks would probably be the best argument, but I suspect the reasoning for now allowing their repair is the realization that there's so much traffic in one spot - around the hole.

The biggest argument would probably be borrowing animal holes. Those are natural and not unexpected, shy would a golfer get free relief from those? Probably two reasons: one, they're often so deep as to be unplayable, and two, some Scottsman along the way probably lost a hand.
Divots are absolutely unnatural to the condition that is intended for the golf course. The origin of the golf course condition was not a divot laden fairway.
A bunker is a penalty area, and as such, should not be equitable in discussion to a fairway.

I'm not debating the rulebook as is. I never do (other than to call it stupid). I am debating what it means for something to be GUR. A fairway divot is no longer a fairway.. It is a hole in the fairway, that is repairing over time to become fairway again. It is ground, that is under repair, to return to the original condition.
 
Did I make any of those assertions? I don’t think I did. What you described is what the course designer had in mind when referencing “rub of the green”, not having your ball at the bottom of someone else’s archeological dig.

So if you end up with a severe downhill lie in the fairway due to a drainage grate, that's unfair because the course designer intended you to have a good lie? Or if you ended up on a sidehill lie in the fairway, that's unfair because it's the fairway and you're supposed to have a good lie that gives you a chance for a good approach?

I'd say the course designer intends on the fairway to give you an opportunity for a good lie.
 
Did I make any of those assertions? I don’t think I did. What you described is what the course designer had in mind when referencing “rub of the green”, not having your ball at the bottom of someone else’s archeological dig.
This is where it starts and stops for me.. If a course designer goes out there on his pristine fairways and just chops them up with divots, then I'd agree it was a design feature.

They of course don't... So calling it one and 'rub of the green' doesn't really align for me.
 
Playing devil's advocate I guess it's no different if someone doesn't rake a bunker and you end up in a sand divot, then you don't get to improve that lie.

A fairway is different than a penalty area, but still.
 
Playing devil's advocate I guess it's no different if someone doesn't rake a bunker and you end up in a sand divot, then you don't get to improve that lie.

A fairway is different than a penalty area, but still.
It's no different, but it's different? Is that what you're saying there?
 
I'm saying the ball in the divot is topologically the same, but not as it's a different area of the course covered by different guidelines and etiquette.

If it's not different then you'd have to give relief from them anywhere on the course and I don't think that is what people are suggesting.
 
I'm saying the ball in the divot is topologically the same, but not as it's a different area of the course covered by different guidelines and etiquette.

If it's not different then you'd have to give relief from them anywhere on the course and I don't think that is what people are suggesting.
The original post in the thread was tasking people to write the rule that would allow for a drop out of a fairway divot.

I'm thrilled that it has taken this turn, but technically, in this condition the assumption that it would be considered GUR was well established.
 
I would write the rule that you can take up to 1 grip length relief directly behind the divot.
And NO you cannot use your arm lock putter grip! 🤣
 
The original post in the thread was tasking people to write the rule that would allow for a drop out of a fairway divot.

I'm thrilled that it has taken this turn, but technically, in this condition the assumption that it would be considered GUR was well established.

But if it's literally the definition of "ground under repair" as asserted, relief should be granted anywhere in the general area, no?
 
But if it's literally the definition of "ground under repair" as asserted, relief should be granted anywhere in the general area, no?
I'm not speaking about the rulebook. I'm speaking about basic common sense and/or english language

It is ground.. that is repairing.. or 'under repair' go back to the original condition. Is there another way to describe what is occurring to a divot in the fairway?
 
I'm not speaking about the rulebook. I'm speaking about basic common sense and/or english language

It is ground.. that is repairing.. or 'under repair' go back to the original condition. Is there another way to describe what is occurring to a divot in the fairway?

Personally I'd call it turf which is healing.
 
This is
I'm not speaking about the rulebook. I'm speaking about basic common sense and/or english language

It is ground.. that is repairing.. or 'under repair' go back to the original condition. Is there another way to describe what is occurring to a divot in the fairway?
This has organically developed into semantics and what interpretations, or nuances one is prepared to accept and the behaviour of a player to circumstances that they find their ball in ….
 
This is

This has organically developed into semantics and what interpretations, or nuances one is prepared to accept and the behaviour of a player to circumstances that they find their ball in ….
I mean, kind of... We've got loads of threads like that. The intent of the thread was to accept that the rule would be made, and to find a way to adequately write it.

I'm super down to keep debating the validity of it though - I love it!
 
GUR or not, it still leaves it up to interpretation. I think you should be entitled to lift/clean/place anywhere in the fairway, regardless of how old the divot is. That's the only way to keep it consistent and fair.

And since bunkers were mentioned, I also think it's ridiculous that we have to play out of somebody elses footprint.
 
Having designed a course , it is incongruous that your mount a case that the designer believed that the course would not have divot markings on holes ..

Thats suggesting that having designed a golf club , and expecting no one to hit a ball with it

yes it’s ground and yes it’s under repair or regrowth…. That’s a literal view , equally Canadan, has stated that the rules are stupid, Regardless of the opinion of the rules be it right wrong or indifferent , they are them , and without them it would be a unstructured mess, where no standard is applied to any behaviour or equipment.

This is why rules, are applied so we all equally play under the same judgements and standards.
 
I mean, kind of... We've got loads of threads like that. The intent of the thread was to accept that the rule would be made, and to find a way to adequately write it.

I'm super down to keep debating the validity of it though - I love it!
A island of sensibility 😃😃⛳
 
Having designed a course , it is incongruous that your mount a case that the designer believed that the course would not have divot markings on holes ..

Thats suggesting that having designed a golf club , and expecting no one to hit a ball with it

yes it’s ground and yes it’s under repair or regrowth…. That’s a literal view , equally Canadan, has stated that the rules are stupid, Regardless of the opinion of the rules be it right wrong or indifferent , they are them , and without them it would be a unstructured mess, where no standard is applied to any behaviour or equipment.

This is why rules, are applied so we all equally play under the same judgements and standards.
did anyone say they didn't "think" there would inevitably be divots on the course?

..or did people say it wasn't designed WITH divots on the course?
 
did anyone say they didn't "think" there would inevitably be divots on the course?

..or did people say it wasn't designed WITH divots on the course?
That’s sematics…. No one needs to say anything , logic dictates , ,, as the maxim states for every action there is equal and opposite reaction ….
 
That’s sematics…. No one needs to say anything , logic dictates , ,, as the maxim states for every action there is equal and opposite reaction ….
Then why do we rake bunkers and fix footprints and pitch marks on greens?

Rub of the green, right?
 
Then why do we rake bunkers and fix footprints and pitch marks on greens?

Rub of the green, right?
Because of etiquette and because prior to out ball landing in bunker / on green the damage was not done , the individuals actions were responsible , the equall and opposite reaction therefore is to restore it as best as possible prior to entry in said bunker or prior to impact on green surface.

Thers a separation between incidental and accidental and deliberate actions , rub of green is more aligned to luck etc , a good bounce or approach shot using the topography of green etc or even hitting the flagstick ,, is rub of green…

Poor deliberate behaviours, not fixing meteorite size impact , affecting someone’s line or causing deflection .. or Ball landing in compressed footmark in bunker that hasn’t been raked … is deliberate it’s not rub of green . Those are things that you are supposed to do …..

This is not difficult , and yet we are debating divot decisions, that would be less occurrence than 18 or more greens and who knows how many unraked bunkers , by multiple groups

We can’t magically accelerate grass growth to repair damaged turf ….
 
Because of etiquette and because prior to out ball landing in bunker / on green the damage was not done , the individuals actions were responsible , the equall and opposite reaction therefore is to restore it as best as possible prior to entry in said bunker or prior to impact on green surface.

Thers a separation between incidental and accidental and deliberate actions , rub of green is more aligned to luck etc , a good bounce or approach shot using the topography of green etc or even hitting the flagstick ,, is rub of green…

Poor deliberate behaviours, not fixing meteorite size impact , affecting someone’s line or causing deflection .. or Ball landing in compressed footmark in bunker that hasn’t been raked … is deliberate it’s not rub of green . Those are things that you are supposed to do …..

This is not difficult , and yet we are debating divot decisions, that would be less occurrence than 18 or more greens and who knows how many unraked bunkers , by multiple groups

We can’t magically accelerate grass growth to repair damaged turf ….
Many would argue landing in a divot is 'rub of the green' which is why I noted it.

We used to not be able to fix intentional/unintentional footprint marks on greens. That has since changed, which makes perfect sense. They were errors created by others in what is supposed to be a flat surface of green. I'd make the same argument about a divot in a fairway, because it's not the intent of fairway design, just as a pitch mark is not the intent of a green design.
 
Then why do we rake bunkers and fix footprints and pitch marks on greens?

Rub of the green, right?

No. Rub of the green refers basically to luck. A bad, or good, bounce. Hitting a sprinkler head by chance and having the ball carom wildly in a bad direction. Hitting a cart path, and getting a 450 yard drive out of it. Or your ball ending up in a divot. Raking bunkers and fixing pitch marks is golf courtesy, which can be sometimes sadly lacking these days! We played one of the nicest golf clubs in this area today. I fixed unrepaired pitch marks on every single green!

I once heard Gary McCord refer to "lift, clean, and place" as "lift, clean, and cheat"! And this thought occured to me. If divots should be deemed GUR, who's going to spray the white paint lines around all of them?
 
Reading through this thread makes you realize that the USGA an R&A no matter what are going to PO 50% of the golfers at any given time no matter what rules are changed or adapted. Makes you think this has come up in the changes to the rules of golf before and they said screw it we’ll leave it be rather than open this Pandora’s box.
 
No. Rub of the green refers basically to luck. A bad, or good, bounce. Hitting a sprinkler head by chance and having the ball carom wildly in a bad direction. Hitting a cart path, and getting a 450 yard drive out of it. Or your ball ending up in a divot. Raking bunkers and fixing pitch marks is golf courtesy, which can be sometimes sadly lacking these days! We played one of the nicest golf clubs in this area today. I fixed unrepaired pitch marks on every single green!

I once heard Gary McCord refer to "lift, clean, and place" as "lift, clean, and cheat"! And this thought occured to me. If divots should be deemed GUR, who's going to spray the white paint lines around all of them?
I nominate you :ROFLMAO:

I don't use the term "rub of the green" - I absolutely hate it... That's just what people often say when in threads like this.
 
Back
Top