I don't know if it changed in the last rules update but I understood that holes had to be created by burrowing animals, geese are not so I'd say no relief.
Here's a query. We carry sand bottles on our course to fill divot holes and many members are, fortunately, very diligent about doing this. In the fall (as now) we have Canada geese frequenting the course. They tend to get into the sand-filled divot holes with their beaks, looking for whatever. If my ball were to come to rest in a sand-filled divot hole that was initially level with the ground surface but had been disturbed by a goose, looking for whatever and leaving a hole in the sand, would I be entitled to free relief for a ball in an animal hole? Sorry that I don't have any photos, but, imo, it is very clear that the geese have made holes in the sand that is filling the divot hole.
I have no difficulty or reservations about calling that a hole made by an animal, ground torn up by animals is precisely what 16.1 is intended to cover. It also is clearly not an issue excluded from relief by the "no relief for isolated animal footprints" interpretation. So, IMO, go for it. There could be merit, in the interests of having everyone on the same page, of posting a confirming local rule. (Everyone being defined as those that bother to read the local rules, of course. I'm not so sympathetic to those that don't bother.)Here's a query. We carry sand bottles on our course to fill divot holes and many members are, fortunately, very diligent about doing this. In the fall (as now) we have Canada geese frequenting the course. They tend to get into the sand-filled divot holes with their beaks, looking for whatever. If my ball were to come to rest in a sand-filled divot hole that was initially level with the ground surface but had been disturbed by a goose, looking for whatever and leaving a hole in the sand, would I be entitled to free relief for a ball in an animal hole? Sorry that I don't have any photos, but, imo, it is very clear that the geese have made holes in the sand that is filling the divot hole.
The hole was made by a golfer, was it not? All the goose has done is make the filling uneven. Ergo not an animal hole. (Discuss using both sides of the paper ... )Here's a query. We carry sand bottles on our course to fill divot holes and many members are, fortunately, very diligent about doing this. In the fall (as now) we have Canada geese frequenting the course. They tend to get into the sand-filled divot holes with their beaks, looking for whatever. If my ball were to come to rest in a sand-filled divot hole that was initially level with the ground surface but had been disturbed by a goose, looking for whatever and leaving a hole in the sand, would I be entitled to free relief for a ball in an animal hole? Sorry that I don't have any photos, but, imo, it is very clear that the geese have made holes in the sand that is filling the divot hole.
By that logic, you get no relief from a divot in GUR because the divot was made by a golfer. Your relief is from a defined abnormal course condition, not from the divot. You get the relief anywhere on the course other than in a penalty area. Divots also tend to be all over the course but they do not change any entitlement to authorised relief.The hole was made by a golfer, was it not? All the goose has done is make the filling uneven. Ergo not an animal hole. (Discuss using both sides of the paper ... )
The hole was repaired so that it was no longer a hole. Then, an animal changed the nature of that non-hole into a condition covered by the rule.?The hole was made by a golfer, was it not? All the goose has done is make the filling uneven. Ergo not an animal hole. (Discuss using both sides of the paper ... )