RoG impact on GCA

[Jon Nolan]

From a recent thread...

(that being said, I think sand filled divots should be classified as ground under repair, but thats a different issue)

Worthy of a OT discussion in and of itself but as I thought about this I believe there's something bigger to contemplate.  First things first.  I've seen this come up a number of times in rules forums and for me it always comes back to a couple of questions. 

(1)  How would you determine when a sand filled divot is no longer a divot?  Obviously it doesn't go from sand to grassy fairway overnight so who decides when the line is crossed?

(2)  With some divots it might be quite difficult to determine the margins of the GUR defined by the scar.  Divots aren't going to be marked with white paint so we'd have to go by the sometimes fuzzy transition between the damaged area and the area external to it.

These issues DQ the idea completely for me.  As said, possibly worth discussing. 

Beyond that though, I think it's interesting to think of the impact the Rules of Golf have or might have on GCA.  Take this issue.  If sand filled divots were to be considered GUR we'd end up with collection areas that would end up as a complete mess strategically.  Short and right of #16 green at Pac Dunes is a great example.  So many balls end up down there it's already half full of divots.  Obviously you can play from GUR but there would also be the option for relief.  Dropping a ball in those areas would be like betting on black in roulette.  There would be plenty of two drops followed by the placing of the ball which in addition to just flat out feeling wrong would slow the game down further - something we definitely don't need.  Not to mention that everyone would end up on a good piece of ground thus increasing the overall scope of divot damage as players tear up their guaranteed perfect lie.

It seems making a rule change like this would have a huge (negative) impact on collection areas.  Would architects have the same frame of mind when it comes to including them in their designs?  I'd like to know.

Are there other Rules of Golf that have a not necessarily obvious impact on GCA?  Are there often discussed changes to the RoG that would result in architecturally significant changes to existing course strategies and influence future designs?

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

I've always been an advocate of divots being GUR.  Personally I don't think trying to judge what is an isn't a divot would be too difficult, whether it be a fresh or an old one.

The rules of golf already allow for such judgement on the golf course and that is the ability to fix ball marks.  Some ball marks are obvious, but many are also in the in-between mode you describe.  Yet players are still allowed to use thier judgement and in practice often easily determine what is and isn't a ball mark very quickly and without undo drama/controversy.  I don't see how this same concept can't be easily ported over to determing if a divot is a divot.  Ball marks on the greens are also not marked with white paint, but yet we seem to have no issue figuring out what is and isn't one.

To me the bigger issue is inconsistency.  If we're going to play the ball down all the time, then fine....lets go old school where no one gets any relief from anything, ball marks, or GUR, or casual water, or man made objects, or staked trees, etc.  But the current implementation of the rules are inconsitent at best in these scenarios when someone who drives in the rough can get relief from a staked tree, yet another who drives it in the fairway is completly screwed by a poor lie in a divot.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Rules of Golf like course etiquette either has to be followed or they are pointless.

So some rules apply while others don’t because we can’t be bothered or have not the time, we just ignore them, seems to perhaps explain the current state of affairs. The problem is like many we decided that the RoG do not apply when its inconvenient for us and at any other time we each so wish – wonder who might be to blame – is that a mirror I see before me – no it can’t be as its not MY fault.

Our modern society is one of not accepting the responsibilities for our actions, why should it be any different on a Golf Course. Rules only matter if as a socie, be it golfing or whatever we all decide to comply with them. Did we not recently hear Tiger saying he did not think the Rules applied to him – well our sportsmen don’t follow the rules, our MP’s certainly do not, so who is or does – the stupid silent majority I suppose.

What was that about The Rules of Golf?

Melvyn   

[John Moore II]

Ground under repair always winds up being a judgement call though. Like a freshly sodded area. When does it does from new to established? That is a judgement call for either a rules official or superintendent. It would be the exact same for a sand filled divot. And you could make that determination within the group that is playing the course. Just in fairness. And lets not pretend that groups always follow the rules exactly. Just roll the ball over to a fair place and play on. Don't fool around with dropping and placing and such. I am a big fan of following the rules and all, but on a fun play day, just hurry up with it.

My reason for saying a divot is GUR is that someone took an effort to repair it. Without sanding, just a bare divot is not GUR.

[Jon Nolan]

Ground under repair always winds up being a judgement call though. Like a freshly sodded area. When does it does from new to established? That is a judgement call for either a rules official or superintendent. It would be the exact same for a sand filled divot. And you could make that determination within the group that is playing the course.

The difference for me is that with a freshly sodded area the committee (competition or simply course management) is making the call.  They are marking the GUR and then removing the markings at the appropriate time.  With a sand filled divot it's the old "player as committee" circumstance which I believe is problematic in this case as everyone's judgment as to when the divot transitions back to fairway will be different.  Think about the tournament implications.  We'd had to have GPS mapping of each sand filled divot and its daily status.   

My reason for saying a divot is GUR is that someone took an effort to repair it. Without sanding, just a bare divot is not GUR.

I do like that distinction.  No question there's a difference.  Not enough for me though.  I'll have to stay in the no relief camp.

[Jon Nolan]

If we're going to play the ball down all the time, then fine....lets go old school where no one gets any relief from anything, ball marks, or GUR, or casual water, or man made objects, or staked trees, etc. 

Ding ding ding.  Winner.

I'm not necessarily on the far extreme of this issue but I do think the closer we get to that ideal the better.

But the current implementation of the rules are inconsitent at best in these scenarios when someone who drives in the rough can get relief from a staked tree, yet another who drives it in the fairway is completly screwed by a poor lie in a divot.

True, but as VERY often stated on this board, golf isn't fair.   

[John Moore II]

Ground under repair always winds up being a judgement call though. Like a freshly sodded area. When does it does from new to established? That is a judgement call for either a rules official or superintendent. It would be the exact same for a sand filled divot. And you could make that determination within the group that is playing the course.

The difference for me is that with a freshly sodded area the committee (competition or simply course management) is making the call.  They are marking the GUR and then removing the markings at the appropriate time.  With a sand filled divot it's the old "player as committee" circumstance which I believe is problematic in this case as everyone's judgment as to when the divot transitions back to fairway will be different.  Think about the tournament implications.  We'd had to have GPS mapping of each sand filled divot and its daily status.   

My reason for saying a divot is GUR is that someone took an effort to repair it. Without sanding, just a bare divot is not GUR.

I do like that distinction.  No question there's a difference.  Not enough for me though.  I'll have to stay in the no relief camp.

In a tournament it would be up to the committee or a rules official to make the call if relief is to be granted, it wouldn't be up to the individual players. On a dialy basis, it wouldn't make any difference. Just do what is fair within the group in question. Thats what the rules are about at the core, fairness and equity to all players.

[Kalen Braley]

If we're going to play the ball down all the time, then fine....lets go old school where no one gets any relief from anything, ball marks, or GUR, or casual water, or man made objects, or staked trees, etc. 

Ding ding ding.  Winner.

I'm not necessarily on the far extreme of this issue but I do think the closer we get to that ideal the better.

But the current implementation of the rules are inconsitent at best in these scenarios when someone who drives in the rough can get relief from a staked tree, yet another who drives it in the fairway is completly screwed by a poor lie in a divot.

True, but as VERY often stated on this board, golf isn't fair.   

Jon Nolan,

I completly agree...and thats one of my biggest beefs with the current rules.....they try to put so much fairness in them by allowing drops from causal water, or an obstruction, or GUR that it becomes completely arbitrary who gets relief and who gets screwed!!   

P.S. Jon,

We need to get out and play.  That recent snow didn't help, but lets do Thanksgiving Point soon.  The green fees are cheap this time of year and the place is practically empty.

Kalen

[Sean_A]

If we're going to play the ball down all the time, then fine....lets go old school where no one gets any relief from anything, ball marks, or GUR, or casual water, or man made objects, or staked trees, etc. 

I am with Kalen in wanting to see golf more toward eliminating exceptions than toward creating more exceptions to the rule.  But, as was pointed out, the rules aren't really about fairness, they are about equity and like for like treatment.  I give you a few examples.  We played Little Aston on Friday and one of our lot ended up in a bunker which was obviously being repaired, but it wasn't marked as GUR.  We completely went against the rules of golf because we knew that a painted line around a bunker was not the issue.  The issue was the bunker was under repair - rakes and tools were lying about and the sand was pushed to one side .  However, instead of a drop out of the hazard we treated the repair area like water and gave a drop within the bunker to a spot that wasn't messed with.  To me, it made the most sense, but it was a bogus ruling.  On the other hand, we were up at Formby on Sunday and a green was out of action so I had to drop.  My nearest POR was in a poor situation where I no longer had a putt at the hole because dunes now interfered with my line.  Do I think this is right? No way.  I think I should be allowed to best as I can recreate the putt I had with my drop, but that ain't the rules and since we were playing for money I wasn't going to DO THE RIGHT THING - I was gonna follow the rules.  Two cases with inconsistent logic.  The one where we didn't follow the rules made much more sense to me than when we did follow the rules. 

Ciao

[JohnV]

In a tournament it would be up to the committee or a rules official to make the call if relief is to be granted, it wouldn't be up to the individual players.

John, are you planning on having an official with every group or at least on every hole?  Other than the majors, this doesn't happen.   Or would you rather just have everyone wait for an official to be able to get there?  There are too many divots out there to be making rulings.

Would you give relief for sand-filled divots in the rough?   

[JohnV]

I am with Kalen in wanting to see golf more toward eliminating exceptions than toward creating more exceptions to the rule.  But, as was pointed out, the rules aren't really about fairness, they are about equity and like for like treatment.  I give you a few examples.  We played Little Aston on Friday and one of our lot ended up in a bunker which was obviously being repaired, but it wasn't marked as GUR.  We completely went against the rules of golf because we knew that a painted line around a bunker was not the issue.  The issue was the bunker was under repair - rakes and tools were lying about and the sand was pushed to one side .  However, instead of a drop out of the hazard we treated the repair area like water and gave a drop within the bunker to a spot that wasn't messed with.  To me, it made the most sense, but it was a bogus ruling.  On the other hand, we were up at Formby on Sunday and a green was out of action so I had to drop.  My nearest POR was in a poor situation where I no longer had a putt at the hole because dunes now interfered with my line.  Do I think this is right? No way.  I think I should be allowed to best as I can recreate the putt I had with my drop, but that ain't the rules and since we were playing for money I wasn't going to DO THE RIGHT THING - I was gonna follow the rules.  Two cases with inconsistent logic.  The one where we didn't follow the rules made much more sense to me than when we did follow the rules. 

Ciao

Sean, You have to know the rules in order to play by them.  In the first case, if it is possible that only a portion of the bunker would be classifed as GUR you acted correctly.  Secondly, there is no need for a line or anything to mark it if it is obvioulsy work (i.e. a "hole made by a groundskeeper") since that is GUR by definition.  In the second case, if your ball was on the green before taking relief, you should have placed it, not dropped it, even if the location you were placing it was off the green.

[John Moore II]

In a tournament it would be up to the committee or a rules official to make the call if relief is to be granted, it wouldn't be up to the individual players.

John, are you planning on having an official with every group or at least on every hole?  Other than the majors, this doesn't happen.   Or would you rather just have everyone wait for an official to be able to get there?  There are too many divots out there to be making rulings.

Would you give relief for sand-filled divots in the rough?   

You are, of course, correct about rules officials. However, do you not consider a part of the course that has been purposefully improved by a staff member to be ground under repair? And yes, I'd give relief frm a sand filled divot in the rough.

[Kalen Braley]

In a tournament it would be up to the committee or a rules official to make the call if relief is to be granted, it wouldn't be up to the individual players.

John, are you planning on having an official with every group or at least on every hole?  Other than the majors, this doesn't happen.   Or would you rather just have everyone wait for an official to be able to get there?  There are too many divots out there to be making rulings.

Would you give relief for sand-filled divots in the rough?   

John,

How do players determine what is and isn't a ball mark when they get to greens....this is a pretty common on the spot judgement call is it not?  I don't think rules officials are called in for these right?

[Sean_A]

I am with Kalen in wanting to see golf more toward eliminating exceptions than toward creating more exceptions to the rule.  But, as was pointed out, the rules aren't really about fairness, they are about equity and like for like treatment.  I give you a few examples.  We played Little Aston on Friday and one of our lot ended up in a bunker which was obviously being repaired, but it wasn't marked as GUR.  We completely went against the rules of golf because we knew that a painted line around a bunker was not the issue.  The issue was the bunker was under repair - rakes and tools were lying about and the sand was pushed to one side .  However, instead of a drop out of the hazard we treated the repair area like water and gave a drop within the bunker to a spot that wasn't messed with.  To me, it made the most sense, but it was a bogus ruling.  On the other hand, we were up at Formby on Sunday and a green was out of action so I had to drop.  My nearest POR was in a poor situation where I no longer had a putt at the hole because dunes now interfered with my line.  Do I think this is right? No way.  I think I should be allowed to best as I can recreate the putt I had with my drop, but that ain't the rules and since we were playing for money I wasn't going to DO THE RIGHT THING - I was gonna follow the rules.  Two cases with inconsistent logic.  The one where we didn't follow the rules made much more sense to me than when we did follow the rules.  

Ciao

Sean, You have to know the rules in order to play by them.  In the first case, if it is possible that only a portion of the bunker would be classifed as GUR you acted correctly.  Secondly, there is no need for a line or anything to mark it if it is obvioulsy work (i.e. a "hole made by a groundskeeper") since that is GUR by definition.  In the second case, if your ball was on the green before taking relief, you should have placed it, not dropped it, even if the location you were placing it was off the green.

John

Yes, I knew that bunkers could only partially be GUR, but I didn't know that the player could make a decision as to whether or not GUR is in effect - that is quite interesting.  As to the dropping situation, yes I knew I could place, but it didn't matter because winter rules were in effect and I could place anyway - which I did after dropping.  In this case, I was focusing on the area for the placement.  There is no way I thought this was reasonable as I no longer had an unimpeded line to the hole whereas with the actual shot I had a direct line for putting.  Besides, my approach was actually only a few feet away from the hole not in use - heavy sigh!  Talk about hard cheese and I am positive that nobody would have thought this was a reasonable solution for my case.  

Ciao

[Jon Nolan]

The discussion tends to center around rules officials and committees but for 99.99% of play there are no officials and the committee is either the course management or, and some would argue against this, the players themselves as a group.  It wouldn't be practical to reach agreement on the status of a sand filled divot as GUR under either of these scenarios.  Even within a single tee time it would require bringing people from different areas of the hole to make a ruling.  Managing a friendly competition across two tee times would be impossible. 

I know the easy response is to laugh off the idea of a committee during a Tuesday afternoon round with beers on the line but the RoG have to accommodate it for those who enjoy this sort of competition and try to make it as equitable as possible.  I wouldn't want to be playing against a guy who is very much inclined to grant himself GUR relief from a sand filled divot when I'm much more critical.  Seems unworkable to me and as much as we rail against them the RoG are nothing if not practical and essentially equitable.

[Jon Nolan]

And yes, I'd give relief frm a sand filled divot in the rough.

That's extremely generous.  The rules don't even grant relief under 25-2 for an embedded ball if it's not a closely mown area.

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

I get what you are saying, and I agree somewhat...but the way i see it, is like this.

We already seem to figure out what a ball mark is on our own and whether or not we're allowed to fix it.
Or where the ball last crossed the line of a hazard and where to drop it.
Or if a ball lies in GUR or not.
Or if a ball is gashed enough to warrant a replacement ball being put in play.
Or how to take a drop for an unplayable lie.
Or where to take relief when the ball stops on a cart path.
Or how to pick up a ball for identification and then do a replace.
etc, etc.

I just don't see why determing a ball in a divot would be that much more difficult or controversial...we already make several judgement calls on the course as it is and everyone seems to get along, and make bets, and not kill each other!!   

Either that, or get rid of all these exceptions and just play the ball where it lies.  But in the meantime, I just can't think of something more fundamentally unfair, or more unequitable than to hit a nice drive right down the middle and get screwed by an awful lie in a nasty gouged out divot. 

[Jon Nolan]

Kalen,

Most/all of the things you mention are handled on the basis of facts or established procedures.  We might get them wrong but the facts exist.  Where a ball crossed the margin of a hazard might be difficult to get right but there is one and only one correct answer.  Our job is to figure it out even though we may often fail.  Still, best effort is given to establishing that singular fact and we proceed from there.

A sand filled divot on day one is easy but what about a sand filled divot however many days later?  Tough call that's not even about margins of the (proposed) GUR any more.  It's about whether or not it's even a sand filled divot now.  Most things in the RoG are fairly black and white.  We don't think so because it's a big book of decisions and we can't be bothered to read/learn them all.  I think this sand filled divot thing is essentially every shade of gray from the time the player fills the wound to the day it's completely unrecognizable as different from the fairway two inches away.

I'll give ground on the ball mark issue.  I'm interested to hear what those in the know have to say.

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

I disagree in that there are more than a few things.

Deciding if a ball rests in causal water is highly open to whose ball is lying in the water.
Deciding if a something "man made" is in your way ala Ian Poultor just recently is speculative...he got two different rulings.
Deciding if a ball lies on hard pan or GUR because the mowers frequently travel over that patch can be hard to call.
As you said, deciding where a ball crosses the line of the hazard is another one I've seen where guys give themselves far more credit than where they actually hit it.
Coming to an agreement if "winter rules" will be in affect has caused some friction in money matches I've seen.
Deciding if a ball is on the green (and can be marked) or in the fringe has caused a ton on controversy in some of my own matches.
Deciding if a ball is OB or not depending on how one "lines up" the OB stakes...yes I've seen some ugliness on these ones, especially since its a potential "take the walk of shame" on the line.
And of course this also includes deciding what is and isn't a ball mark.

And those are just the ones I can think of.  I'm sure guys like JVB have a whole booklet on "judgement" calls that exist out there where judgement must be used and its not clear vut

So once again, do away with all these rules and play it where it lies...ie don't touch it until its holed.  Or do something about the completely awful divot rule to bring some real equity to the game.  Not that I have a strong opinion on this or anything!!   

[John Moore II]

And yes, I'd give relief frm a sand filled divot in the rough.

That's extremely generous.  The rules don't even grant relief under 25-2 for an embedded ball if it's not a closely mown area.

I'm a generous dude.

[Jon Nolan]

Jon,

I disagree in that there are more than a few things

...

Not that I have a strong opinion on this or anything!!   

Should I ever be playing a match with you and should you be leading 1 up with 2 to play it seems the proper play might be to start an argument on this subject in the hopes you drop a couple in the Jordan River.

 

(My way of confirming tomorrow at 11:20.  See you south of the border.)

[Jon Nolan]

And yes, I'd give relief frm a sand filled divot in the rough.

That's extremely generous.  The rules don't even grant relief under 25-2 for an embedded ball if it's not a closely mown area.

I'm a generous dude.

LOL.  So you'll give me six strokes a side then? 

[John Moore II]

And yes, I'd give relief frm a sand filled divot in the rough.

That's extremely generous.  The rules don't even grant relief under 25-2 for an embedded ball if it's not a closely mown area.

I'm a generous dude.

LOL.  So you'll give me six strokes a side then? 

Maybe. Depends how good a player you are.

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

I disagree in that there are more than a few things

...

Not that I have a strong opinion on this or anything!!   

Should I ever be playing a match with you and should you be leading 1 up with 2 to play it seems the proper play might be to start an argument on this subject in the hopes you drop a couple in the Jordan River.

 

(My way of confirming tomorrow at 11:20.  See you south of the border.)

LOl, the dreaded 17th...

Sounds like a plan, and I shall see you there!   

P.S.  I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me where the "equity" is in striping one down the middle and having to play it from a nasty, scraggly, crater while your buddy gets a free drop in the rough cause his ball came to rest near a staked tree.

[Jon Nolan]

LOl, the dreaded 17th...

Sounds like a plan, and I shall see you there!   

P.S.  I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me where the "equity" is in striping one down the middle and having to play it from a nasty, scraggly, crater while your buddy gets a free drop in the rough cause his ball came to rest near a staked tree.

Equity does not mean fair in the sense of "justice prevails".  Equity means every player has the same chance of striping one down the middle and ending up in a nasty, scraggly crater.  Equity means every player has the same chance of coming to rest near a staked tree and getting a free drop.

Equity keeps the playing field level.  It does not help nor does it hinder any one particular player.

Let the discussion continue under the warm cool frigid skies of a Northern Utah (almost) spring.