Relief from Divot Rule?

[Nick20UK]

I don't think any one is arguing you should automatically get a perfect lie in the fairway. Personally I wouldn't like year round winter rules.

I think it's fair to assume you'll get a reasonable lie though, and better than you'd get in the rough. At least not be penalised. Bare dirt or a major depression caused by someone else's swing isn't within the spirit of the courses intended conditions IMO. Especially as the previous guy should have repaired or filled in any damage to the surface. Unfortunately not everyone does that so the free relief is an attempt to protect you from that.

Nothing wrong with lift, clean and replace in someone else's lazy mess they've made.

 

[Nick20UK]

Also I'm sure greenkeepers would prefer not to see people trying to hack their way out of bad lies on their pristine fairways, causing even more damage.

 

[Louis_Posture]

It seems like the problem comes down to when is a divot no longer a divot?

A divot has a lifespan of approximately one month, dependent on several factors including when or if it was repaired, weather conditions, mowing depth and frequency etc...
Obviously, defining a divot with written words is impossible, which is why the USGA and R&A exclude divots from the Rules of Golf.
Conditions such as embedded ball and burrowing animal are easy to define and as such are included in the Rules of Golf and are entitled to relief.

I think it is a simple one, free relief from a divot which I think is "ground under repair" (abnormal ground conditions). USGA states under the "ground under repair" rule that you can play it as it lies or get free relief. USGA also states in regard to "ground under repair" that "These conditions are not treated as part of your challenge of playing the course, and you are generally allowed free relief except in a penalty area." So to me, it seems logical that relief from a divot should be the same relief as "ground under repair" and be allowed for relief in the "general area" (through the green).

Also, getting relief from an embedded lie is similar as well. USGA states that getting relief from embedded lie is also not considered a normal challenge of playing the course.

Ground under repair (GUR) is marked as such with signs, spray paint, ropes etc... I've played courses with a hole or two that has a relatively small tee shot collection area which sometimes gets so overwhelmed with divots that essentially no grass remains, and those courses mark the area off as ground under repair for a month or two (so that the fairway area will have an opportunity to heal).
Embedded ball is easy to define and entitled to relief. In contrast, aged divots are impossible to define. Also, divots are absolutely a "normal challenge of playing a golf shot" and have been for 200 years, ever since the game was invented.

 

[oumagic]

I was first one off in league yesterday and on hole two, the fairway looked like a moon landing. I made the call that fairways you could move it out of a divot and a playing partner did on that hole; we passed the word back to other groups.

I didn’t have to move one the entire day and out of our 5 groups, I heard of only 3 people needing to do it on the day.

It isn’t like the rule change means LCP on every hole. I just don’t think anyone should be penalized for hitting a fairway and playing behind inconsiderate a-holes.

I replaced a number of divots in the fairway yesterday that were deep and fresh.

 

[Canadan]

None granting relief for any condition as pervasive as divots.

It's funny you say that considering how often I am told in divot threads that people never hit into them so it's a non issue.

My point remains. The rulebook is not currently void of judgment calls. This rule can be another when applied as reasonably as the other rules in the book.

 

[Louis_Posture]

My point remains. The rulebook is not currently void of judgment calls. This rule can be another when applied as reasonably as the other rules in the book.

The Rules of Golf book has clearly defined Rules written to minimize ambiguity.
Which particular Rule (s) do you believe are subject to vague interpretation?

 

[Canadan]

The Rules of Golf book has clearly defined Rules written to minimize ambiguity.
Which particular Rule (s) do you believe are subject to vague interpretation?

I don't think I need to point you to the many rules that require a decision to gain relief from or manipulate a situation.
It's pretty obvious I would think.

And I'll add, the rules of golf are not AT ALL clearly defined or written in a way that minimizes ambiguity. The rules of golf are INSANE... and the decisions that muddy the water even more.

 

[Buckeyegolfnut]

A divot has a lifespan of approximately one month, dependent on several factors including when or if it was repaired, weather conditions, mowing depth and frequency etc...
Obviously, defining a divot with written words is impossible, which is why the USGA and R&A exclude divots from the Rules of Golf.
Conditions such as embedded ball and burrowing animal are easy to define and as such are included in the Rules of Golf and are entitled to relief.


Ground under repair (GUR) is marked as such with signs, spray paint, ropes etc... I've played courses with a hole or two that has a relatively small tee shot collection area which sometimes gets so overwhelmed with divots that essentially no grass remains, and those courses mark the area off as ground under repair for a month or two (so that the fairway area will have an opportunity to heal).
Embedded ball is easy to define and entitled to relief. In contrast, aged divots are impossible to define. Also, divots are absolutely a "normal challenge of playing a golf shot" and have been for 200 years, ever since the game was invented.

A few years ago a local 36 hole golf course, and the surrounding area, suffered through 20+ inches of rain in less than a week. They had just spent a half million dollars to redo all the bunker on the course. The lower course was totally flooded and closed. The upper course was closed for a week to 10 days. Every bunker and many fairway areas were labeled GUR with paint. I can't imagine the number of paint cans they had to go through, and I highly doubt that any course would be willing to take on that duty to designate divots the same way.

As for me and my buddies we never hit fron divots. We just play for fun and mug the ball until we're happy. About the only rule that we follow to a T is to count all your strokes, including your penalty strokes.

 

[BigMac]

A few years ago a local 36 hole golf course, and the surrounding area, suffered through 20+ inches of rain in less than a week. They had just spent a half million dollars to redo all the bunker on the course. The lower course was totally flooded and closed. The upper course was closed for a week to 10 days. Every bunker and many fairway areas were labeled GUR with paint. I can't imagine the number of paint cans they had to go through, and I highly doubt that any course would be willing to take on that duty to designate divots the same way.

As for me and my buddies we never hit fron divots. We just play for fun and mug the ball until we're happy. About the only rule that we follow to a T is to count all your strokes, including your penalty strokes.

At my course they'll go out and mark GUR before big tournaments with paint, but they don't do it for day to day play. We know the areas they usually mark, and we know what conditions they'll consider GUR, so we make our own decisions on it while playing our day to day rounds.

 

[Louis_Posture]

I don't think I need to point you to the many rules that require a decision to gain relief from or manipulate a situation.
It's pretty obvious I would think.

And I'll add, the rules of golf are not AT ALL clearly defined or written in a way that minimizes ambiguity. The rules of golf are INSANE... and the decisions that muddy the water even more.

You don't "need to", but it would be helpful for me to understand your point. For example, common lie conditions for which a player is entitled relief such as from a cart path or embedded ball or casual water are easy to identify and clearly defined within the Rules of Golf. None of those Rules typically "require a decision" and or are subject to manipulation.
I expect anybody that has played a dozen or more rounds of golf should know that a fresh divot appears much differently than a week-old divot, which looks much different from a 2-week-old divot, which is very different from a month-old divot etc... Unlike a ball lying on a cart path or embedded within the ground or sitting in casual water, identifying an aged divot is essentially an impossible thing to do.

 

[MSEASU]

Im sure if pros got stuck in the kind of divots the amateurs find there would be a rule change. You know the 2 inch deep V shaped divot that looks like someone swung an axe into the ground.

 

[JonMA1]

but they don't do it for day to day play

Right. I know this is an extreme example, but it went right across the fairway and wasn't marked. I don't think many golfers are going to question whether or not they should get free relief.

 

[pinger_72]

I think it is a simple one, free relief from a divot which I think is "ground under repair" (abnormal ground conditions). USGA states under the "ground under repair" rule that you can play it as it lies or get free relief. USGA also states in regard to "ground under repair" that "These conditions are not treated as part of your challenge of playing the course, and you are generally allowed free relief except in a penalty area." So to me, it seems logical that relief from a divot should be the same relief as "ground under repair" and be allowed for relief in the "general area" (through the green).

Also, getting relief from an embedded lie is similar as well. USGA states that getting relief from embedded lie is also not considered a normal challenge of playing the course.

I agree with this but the fact remains it still has to be determined if its a divot or not which is where the controversy really comes in

 

[pinger_72]

Right. I know this is an extreme example, but it went right across the fairway and wasn't marked. I don't think many golfers are going to question whether or not they should get free relief.

View attachment 9244851

I've seen sand traps like that LOL!

 

[Canadan]

You don't "need to", but it would be helpful for me to understand your point. For example, common lie conditions for which a player is entitled relief such as from a cart path or embedded ball or casual water are easy to identify and clearly defined within the Rules of Golf. None of those Rules typically "require a decision" and or are subject to manipulation.
I expect anybody that has played a dozen or more rounds of golf should know that a fresh divot appears much differently than a week-old divot, which looks much different from a 2-week-old divot, which is very different from a month-old divot etc... Unlike a ball lying on a cart path or embedded within the ground or sitting in casual water, identifying an aged divot is essentially an impossible thing to do.

Casual water is entirely subjective in plenty of instances.

 

[Canadan]

Im sure if pros got stuck in the kind of divots the amateurs find there would be a rule change. You know the 2 inch deep V shaped divot that looks like someone swung an axe into the ground.

They are always talking about making tour golf harder. They should blow all the sand out of divots every week and make them play out of the craters.

 

[Louis_Posture]

Casual water is entirely subjective in plenty of instances.

I've played golf for decades and never heard of any uncertainty or discrepancy defining casual water.
By definition, “casual water” is any temporary accumulation of water on the course that is not in a water hazard and is visible before or after the player takes his stance.

 

[Canadan]

I've played golf for decades and never heard of any uncertainty or discrepancy defining casual water.
By definition, “casual water” is any temporary accumulation of water on the course that is not in a water hazard and is visible before or after the player takes his stance.

I know the definition. I also know it's a judgment call.

My decades of golf have confirmed that there are differing levels of casual water and/or water accumulation that would support this rule.

....and that I've had no issues coming to a consensus with my group when deciding on it for one of us

 

[MWard]

I know the definition. I also know it's a judgment call.

My decades of golf have confirmed that there are differing levels of casual water and/or water accumulation that would support this rule.

....and that I've had no issues coming to a consensus with my group when deciding on it for one of us

From a rules official I chatted with about a month ago about a ruling he had to do: casual water is completely opinion based. One official may go off of if water puddles up while making a normal step onto the area, another may do it based on how much they feel the ground give way when they step there.

It’s not quite so clearly defined, which is why you have so many players call for an official in those moments. Better to be safe than sorry. Also, player did not plead their case very well, as they did not receive a drop.

 

[MWard]

Right. I know this is an extreme example, but it went right across the fairway and wasn't marked. I don't think many golfers are going to question whether or not they should get free relief.

View attachment 9244851

That should be deserving of free relief, regardless of painted or not. Ugh, come on maintenance. Just write gur or mark it and voila :/

 

[Canadan]

From a rules official I chatted with about a month ago about a ruling he had to do: casual water is completely opinion based. One official may go off of if water puddles up while making a normal step onto the area, another may do it based on how much they feel the ground give way when they step there.

It’s not quite so clearly defined, which is why you have so many players call for an official in those moments. Better to be safe than sorry. Also, player did not plead their case very well, as they did not receive a drop.

yeah, and I respect that golf is a game of situations like this - so I understand the need for vague realities in the rules.

I just don't see it as a reasonable hard stop for adding another rule.

 

[wadesworld]

From a rules official I chatted with about a month ago about a ruling he had to do: casual water is completely opinion based. One official may go off of if water puddles up while making a normal step onto the area, another may do it based on how much they feel the ground give way when they step there.

It’s not quite so clearly defined, which is why you have so many players call for an official in those moments. Better to be safe than sorry. Also, player did not plead their case very well, as they did not receive a drop.

I'd disagree with him on that. The standard is pretty clear: if you can't see the water above ground before or after the player takes their stance, it's not temporary water. The ground merely being extremely muddy or saturated isn't enough. It was more subjective before the 2019 rule changes.

That said, I do agree the official is unlikely to get challenged in many cases, so if they're feeling charitable, they could be more lenient. I would hope not though - rules officials should strive for as much consistency as possible.

A better example for Dan's argument of subjectivity would be the player deciding where his ball crossed a penalty area. The player's reasonable judgement (taking into account all available information), is accepted, even if later proved wrong.

 

[JonMA1]

That should be deserving of free relief, regardless of painted or not. Ugh, come on maintenance. Just write gur or mark it and voila :/

That’s not going to happen at a lot of courses I play.

As much as I’d love to play competitively, I no longer have the ambition to keep to up with the ROG. At one point I was hellbent on playing 100% by the rules to the best of my knowledge. That isn’t the case anymore.

 

[BigMac]

From a rules official I chatted with about a month ago about a ruling he had to do: casual water is completely opinion based. One official may go off of if water puddles up while making a normal step onto the area, another may do it based on how much they feel the ground give way when they step there.

It’s not quite so clearly defined, which is why you have so many players call for an official in those moments. Better to be safe than sorry. Also, player did not plead their case very well, as they did not receive a drop.

Technically, there's no such thing as "casual water" anymore. It's now called "temporary water" in Rule 16, and is lumped in with other "Abnormal Course Conditions".

Here's how it's defined in the "Definitions" section of the Rules:

 

[Louis_Posture]

A better example for Dan's argument of subjectivity would be the player deciding where his ball crossed a penalty area. The player's reasonable judgement (taking into account all available information), is accepted, even if later proved wrong.

Golf is a game of honor and players (for example Vijay or Tiger) taking liberties with point-of-entry to a hazard exemplifies their lack of integrity rather than any inadequacy of the Rules of Golf.