Abnormal Ground Conditions?

Here's a thought about birds based on the skilful way in which crows search for goodies by lifting up divots and throwing them aside.

If a bird picks up a divot which had been carefully replaced, does the hole then become a hole made by a bird and thus allowing you relief from an Abnormal Ground Condition if your ball ends up in it? :whistle:
 
Colin L said:
Here's a thought about birds based on the skilful way in which crows search for goodies by lifting up divots and throwing them aside.

If a bird picks up a divot which had been carefully replaced, does the hole then become a hole made by a bird and thus allowing you relief from an Abnormal Ground Condition if your ball ends up in it? :whistle:
Click to expand...
No , but the local rule about dropping from seeded divots should not have removed. IMO.
 
I think you are being mean. Here we have a perfectly level piece of ground comprising a well pressed down divot and a bird comes along and wheechs the divot away thus making a hole and you won't let me call that a hole made by a bird?

morph.jpg
 
Last edited:
Colin L said:
Here's a thought about birds based on the skilful way in which crows search for goodies by lifting up divots and throwing them aside.

If a bird picks up a divot which had been carefully replaced, does the hole then become a hole made by a bird and thus allowing you relief from an Abnormal Ground Condition if your ball ends up in it? :whistle:
Click to expand...

I believe that crows are nesting rather than burrowing critters!
 
Birds and reptiles don't need to be burrowing for their holes, casts or runways to be abnormal ground conditions.

Ok, a golfer made the divot hole in the first place, but he filled it in with the divot. A filled in hole is not a hole. Along comes a crow and takes out a bit of turf. It has created a new hole, a hole made by a bird, therefore an abnormal ground condition.

I await a valid contradiction. :)
 
Colin L said:
Birds and reptiles don't need to be burrowing for their holes, casts or runways to be abnormal ground conditions.

Ok, a golfer made the divot hole in the first place, but he filled it in with the divot. A filled in hole is not a hole. Along comes a crow and takes out a bit of turf. It has created a new hole, a hole made by a bird, therefore an abnormal ground condition.

I await a valid contradiction. :)
Click to expand...

You just need to have seen the bird and be 100% sure that they lifted a replaced divot. Seeing them lift the divot from distance would not be enough because there is always the possibility it is simply lifting turf that had not been replaced but happened to remain close to the area of the divot. But I do see your point that it could be considered a hole made by a bird.
 
Colin L said:
I think you are being mean. Here we have a perfectly level piece of ground comprising a well pressed down divot and a bird comes along and wheechs the divot away thus making a hole and you won't let me call that a hole made by a bird?

View attachment 8638
Click to expand...
I think you might have difficulty in determining whether a golfer hadn't repaired the divot, or whether it had been repaired and then lifted by a bird!
 
Colin L said:
Birds and reptiles don't need to be burrowing for their holes, casts or runways to be abnormal ground conditions.

Ok, a golfer made the divot hole in the first place, but he filled it in with the divot.

I await a valid contradiction. :)
Click to expand...

I would never even consider contadicting you Colin ... but have you not answered your own question as to who made the hole ? the bird merely uncovered it ..

If you had a hole obviously made by a burrowing animal that the green keeper covered in , but a dog uncovered it .. surely the hole was still made by the burrowing animal ?
 
bladeplayer said:
I would never even consider contadicting you Colin ... but have you not answered your own question as to who made the hole ? the bird merely uncovered it ..

If you had a hole obviously made by a burrowing animal that the green keeper covered in , but a dog uncovered it .. surely the hole was still made by the burrowing animal ?
Click to expand...

Is the hole made by the dog not a new hole then? The burrowing animal's hole was filled in and therefore became a non-hole, a former hole, an ex-hole. That the dog came along and decided to dig a hole in the same place is entirely coincidental and does not deny it ownership of its own hole.

(For the avoidance of doubt, as is said, if you go back to my original question, you'll see a clue to a certain lack of seriousness on my part in this discussion :whistle: )
 
Colin L said:
Is the hole made by the dog not a new hole then? The burrowing animal's hole was filled in and therefore became a non-hole, a former hole, an ex-hole. That the dog came along and decided to dig a hole in the same place is entirely coincidental and does not deny it ownership of its own hole.

(For the avoidance of doubt, as is said, if you go back to my original question, you'll see a clue to a certain lack of seriousness on my part in this discussion :whistle: )
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who has just recited the Monty Python Parrot Sketch in my head :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top