Cracks in the ground

[clubchamp98]

Playing devils advocate.....what you have written would seem to suggest that with the ball sitting on pretty much any tiny crack you may take relief (that if the area had a lot of cracks could enable you to move the ball a huge distance when it lands on a new crack when dropped each time) but that if the ball (amazingly) wasn't on a crack, but there was an 8" crack preventing you from taking your stance, it's tough luck.

As to whether it's 'correct'; as presented i would suggest that 25-12 says that such a worded LR isn't acceptable. Suitably defining 'in crack and 'crack' would be required.

Jeez “ In crack and crack” not sure what the difference is

All I know is if your ball is in a crack that’s not usually there and has been caused by the hot spell you get a drop!

npr is next to the crack so drop twice if it rolls into another one then place next to said crack .
If not in crack play as it lies!
stance is not included it’s tough.

That seems simple enough for most players to grasp.

But as a devils advocate I wouldn’t fancy my chances against you in court.

 

[duncan mackie]

Jeez “ In crack and crack” not sure what the difference is

npr is next to the crack so drop twice if it rolls into another one then place next to said crack .
If not in crack play as it lies!
stance is not included it’s tough.

Apologies that autocorrect changed the punctuation - should have read 'in crack' and 'crack' to indicate the need to define what is a crack and what constitutes being in one (in order that everyone playing would interpret the rule the same for any situation.

Interesting that you can be so dismissive over the large crack that would seriously interfere with a players stroke given that your original premise related to the need for relief from these cracks. Having a rule that provides relief that isn't required but denies relief that is doesn't seem very clever to me.

Don't understand why you would place the ball that rolled into a different crack? Same crack yes, but different crack and you will be taking relief under the rule again (so a valid conclusion could already be nearly 6 club lengths from where you started!).

 

[jim8flog]

I'm really glad you have such confidence in your committee - I only have to look at the LRs on cards for courses I visit to have very little such confidence (and that's before reading posts on here!)

I would second that comment.

 

[clubchamp98]

Apologies that autocorrect changed the punctuation - should have read 'in crack' and 'crack' to indicate the need to define what is a crack and what constitutes being in one (in order that everyone playing would interpret the rule the same for any situation.

Interesting that you can be so dismissive over the large crack that would seriously interfere with a players stroke given that your original premise related to the need for relief from these cracks. Having a rule that provides relief that isn't required but denies relief that is doesn't seem very clever to me.

Don't understand why you would place the ball that rolled into a different crack? Same crack yes, but different crack and you will be taking relief under the rule again (so a valid conclusion could already be nearly 6 club lengths from where you started!).

Not dismissive just stating what the email said!

Most of the cracks are like a maze they are all interconnected so it’s the same crack .
I would imagine it’s like any other drop if you drop and don’t get relief you drop again , if still in crack you place where the ball hits the ground.

This is where the rules start to get complicated and common sense goes out the window.

I do agree and did ask why no relief for stance but havnt had a reply.

 

[jim8flog]

The 'trouble' is that when someone knows the rules fairly thoroughly they can get a long way from the original problem either by design or accident.

e.g. there is an area with a lot of rabbit holes, the rules do allow you to treat the general area of the rabbit holes as abnormal ground conditions but you take relief from the one you are in or your stance is affected by, one could therefore by selectively dropping the ball in another rabbit hole move a long way from where you were originally and in a direction that best suits you.

 

[clubchamp98]

The 'trouble' is that when someone knows the rules fairly thoroughly they can get a long way from the original problem either by design or accident.

e.g. there is an area with a lot of rabbit holes, the rules do allow you to treat the general area of the rabbit holes as abnormal ground conditions but you take relief from the one you are in or your stance is affected by, one could therefore by selectively dropping the ball in another rabbit hole move a long way from where you were originally and in a direction that best suits you.

Yes I see your point , but I think this is the reason for the “ball only relief from crack”
If you only get relief for your ball then you only need a small area to drop.
If your stance is on a crack it’s just bad luck.

This would stop someone taking advantage by redropping several times to get a better line.
Just seems common sense!

 

[duncan mackie]

Yes I see your point , but I think this is the reason for the “ball only relief from crack”
If you only get relief for your ball then you only need a small area to drop.
If your stance is on a crack it’s just bad luck.

This would stop someone taking advantage by redropping several times to get a better line.
Just seems common sense!

You get a whole clublength for the drop, and potentially up to another 2 of roll.....loads of opportunity to find another crack and do it again (if you need to get clear of a tree etc etc).

If everybodies concept of common sense was identical we wouldn't need the rules at all. One players concept would involve playing it as it lies from a 2mm crack - another would just as obviously move the ball to take a distant tree a little more out of play. Both would claim their action were consistent with common sense.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

when is a crack not a crack? - when strips of turf in an area of new turf shrink and separate during dry weather? (and not identified as GUR) And there will be other such scenarios never mind those always present courtesy of mother nature.

Mind you - I do recall playing a course where some fairways had cracked very badly during an extended period of dry weather and the club had defined what constituted 'a ball in a crack' for getting relief.

 

[clubchamp98]

You get a whole clublength for the drop, and potentially up to another 2 of roll.....loads of opportunity to find another crack and do it again (if you need to get clear of a tree etc etc).

If everybodies concept of common sense was identical we wouldn't need the rules at all. One players concept would involve playing it as it lies from a 2mm crack - another would just as obviously move the ball to take a distant tree a little more out of play. Both would claim their action were consistent with common sense.

Well they would both be right .If a player elects to play from a crack that’s his choice.

My input was just imagine it was a preferred lie from a crack 6” either side .

Your fellow competitors have to agree its a crack.

But it’s probably against some rule.

But it would stop players taking advantage.

 

[louise_a]

This is the full wording of our notice.


Temporary Local Rule providing relief from 'slits, cracks or machine made grooves' through the green

A local rule has been introduced, with immediate effect, concerning the slits and cracks that have opened up on the course, caused by the excessively dry conditions we are currently experiencing. Your playing partners should agree that relief can be taken before you proceed to take relief without penalty.

Through the green where a ball is lying in a slit or groove, the player must lift and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club length of the nearest point of relief it must first strike the course at a spot that avoids interference by the condition an is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.

This rule will remain in effect until circumstances allow its withdrawal.

 

[duncan mackie]

This is the full wording of our notice.


Temporary Local Rule providing relief from 'slits, cracks or machine made grooves' through the green

A local rule has been introduced, with immediate effect, concerning the slits and cracks that have opened up on the course, caused by the excessively dry conditions we are currently experiencing. Your playing partners should agree that relief can be taken before you proceed to take relief without penalty.

Through the green where a ball is lying in a slit or groove, the player must lift and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club length of the nearest point of relief it must first strike the course at a spot that avoids interference by the condition an is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.

This rule will remain in effect until circumstances allow its withdrawal.

Thank you for posting. I must admit to being surprised that it has been permitted with that particular wording but it would only take the addition of one word, large, to come into line with relevant decision.
The other bit is in making fellow competitors act for the committee - not good. The rules already cover this properly (you decide, generally if there is slight doubt you check with fellow competitors and, if you disagree with them you either refer direct to the committee or via 3-3. That wording changes this and you are stuck with their opinion - I'm guessing this isn't intended and that they are trying to emphasise that you should just agree and get on with it. Good luck if there is an incident 🤔

 

[louise_a]

I can only assume that the wording was approved/recommended by the county.

 

[rosecott]

I can only assume that the wording was approved/recommended by the county.

Even the use of "playing partners"?

 

[bobmac]

Even the use of "playing partners"?

'Playing partners' wasn't in the rule quoted

 

[rulefan]

After consultation with the County, we do now have a specific local rule to cover these cracks.

Does it include the proviso that relief is not available for stance alone? This is the normal way.

Incidentally, the inclusion of the reference to a playing partner would make it non-conforming. I'm also surprised that the county would include such a term in their recommendation although it's not in the LR wording.