Creating a ramp with a Spurk golf mat.

[clubchamp98]

Is that any different to someone teeing it up at the rear of the plastic mat to get a cleaner strike?

TBH I have never seen anyone do that.

If you did that with a Spurk mat you run the risk of hurting yourself or damaging your club as the sole is very solid and if anchored properly it won’t move.

I assume you can put the ball wherever you like on the mat as long as it’s flat on the ground.

 

[clubchamp98]

What difference does it make ?

Is the issue the fact the player has a better lie and has reduced the slope

Yes that was the issue as it was in a comp.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Yes that was the issue as it was in a comp.

But If doesn’t stop moving with the mat flat then what can the player do ?

And surely the slope isn’t that much of an issue when you consider the “prongs” at that deep

 

[clubchamp98]

But If doesn’t stop moving with the mat flat then what can the player do ?

And surely the slope isn’t that much of an issue when you consider the “prongs” at that deep

What you said in post #107.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

What you said in post #107.

So as I said what’s the difference- the slope will be negated either by moving the mat to someone else or placing the mat in a way it stops the ball moving

 

[Voyager EMH]

Shouldn’t be many tree roots in the cut areas that a mat is used!

Come to my club and I'll show you.

 

[PaulMdj]

TBH I have never seen anyone do that.

If you did that with a Spurk mat you run the risk of hurting yourself or damaging your club as the sole is very solid and if anchored properly it won’t move.

I assume you can put the ball wherever you like on the mat as long as it’s flat on the ground.

If you look at one of the plastic ones, similar to the pictures I posted, you can put the ball on the very back corner plugs and then use a Driver or Fairway etc as the ball sits as if it is on a tee, I’d say that is not using the mat as it is intended, but who’s to say.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I've been thinking about the possibility of a ball rolling up to and resting against a tree root. Preferred lies allows you to replace a few inches behind the tree root.
But the placing of a Spurk fairway mat behind the tree root elevates the ball considerably making the tree root less of an obstacle to get over.
Of course anyone who finds themself in this position will be able to do the same, so no one person is gaining an advantage over another.
The same goes for tilting the mat slightly. Everyone can do it so no one person gains an advantage over another.
Sidehill lie ball above the feet - press mat down well. Sidehill lie ball below feet - rest mat gently on the ground. Advantage being gained. But is it "unfairly" when everyone can do it.

The only issue, for me, is qualifying scores being allowed with these advantages.
The issue of "lie" of ball need not be considered, because the clear and obvious alignment aid should negate qualifying scores. (end of...)

Jet plane on a conveyor was far more interesting.

Why I think we do not permit their use for qualifying scores - though as mentioned mats are permitted in a match if ALL players agree.

 

[RichA]

Again though, it doesn’t say at the same depth! Having 3 spikes on one side fully pressed in and the 3 on the opposite only halfway in to make the mat level is not cheating or trying to gain an advantage it is simply to make the ball playable.

From Spurk website…
“Our patented golf mats benefit from a unique design, with a rigid body and 6 spikes that lock into the grass at an angle, providing a consistent stable surface and resulting in a strike without compromise.”

It seems pretty clear that the all spikes, not just half of them, are intended to by fully pressed into the ground to provide the “consistent stable surface” for when you hit it with a golf club at 80mph.

Bearing in mind that there is a rule for these circumstances with an instruction that we must follow, I would have thought that creating one’s own workaround that ignores that rule and improves the lie or stance was at least against the spirit of the game.

It’s weird that some of the same folks who have in the past derided others who have suggested common sense workarounds to the rules are ok with this.

 

[PaulMdj]

From Spurk website…
“Our patented golf mats benefit from a unique design, with a rigid body and 6 spikes that lock into the grass at an angle, providing a consistent stable surface and resulting in a strike without compromise.”

It seems pretty clear that the all spikes, not just half of them, are intended to by fully pressed into the ground to provide the “consistent stable surface” for when you hit it with a golf club at 80mph.

Bearing in mind that there is a rule for these circumstances with an instruction that we must follow, I would have thought that creating one’s own workaround that ignores that rule and improves the lie or stance was at least against the spirit of the game.

It’s weird that some of the same folks who have in the past derided others who have suggested common sense workarounds to the rules are ok with this.

I’m sure your last paragraph isn’t aimed at me so I’ll ignore it.

Back to your other point, again, you obviously haven’t used one as they do not need to be fully pressed to enable a suface to play the ball off.

 

[RichA]

I’m sure your last paragraph isn’t aimed at me so I’ll ignore it.

Back to your other point, again, you obviously haven’t used one as they do not need to be fully pressed to enable a suface to play the ball off.

Not aimed at you. Goes back a few years to an OoB conversation. Various people have occasionally brought it back up as demonstrating a lack of respect for the rules.
As far as I’m concerned this is a light-hearted discussion about something really unimportant; nothing more, so none of this is intended to be adversarial. Just passing the time.

The fairway mats model local rule…
Model Local Rule E-12
When a player’s ball lies in a part of the general area cut to fairway height or less and a putter is not being used for the stroke, the player must take free relief by lifting the original ball and placing the original ball or another ball on an artificial mat and play it from there. The mat must be placed on top of the spot where the ball came to rest.If a ball when placed rolls off the mat, the player must try to place it a second time. If the ball again does not stay on the mat, the mat must be moved to the nearest spot, not nearer the hole, where the ball will come to rest on the mat when placed.

Lots of use of the word “must” there. No mention of it being discretionary if the player has an alternative solution.
And at what point does a mat become a platform and cease to be a mat? I own many mats in my house and garage; none are rigid and all of them conform to the contours of the surface upon which they are lying.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Not aimed at you. Goes back a few years to an OoB conversation. Various people have occasionally brought it back up as demonstrating a lack of respect for the rules.
As far as I’m concerned this is a light-hearted discussion about something really unimportant; nothing more, so none of this is intended to be adversarial. Just passing the time.

The fairway mats model local rule…
Model Local Rule E-12
When a player’s ball lies in a part of the general area cut to fairway height or less and a putter is not being used for the stroke, the player must take free relief by lifting the original ball and placing the original ball or another ball on an artificial mat and play it from there. The mat must be placed on top of the spot where the ball came to rest.If a ball when placed rolls off the mat, the player must try to place it a second time. If the ball again does not stay on the mat, the mat must be moved to the nearest spot, not nearer the hole, where the ball will come to rest on the mat when placed.

Lots of use of the word “must” there. No mention of it being discretionary if the player has an alternative solution.
And at what point does a mat become a platform and cease to be a mat? I own many mats in my house and garage; none are rigid and all of them conform to the contours of the surface upon which they are lying.

Could moving the mat into a position that stops the ball rolling not satisfy that rule

I am glad we don’t use mats

 

[Swango1980]

Not aimed at you. Goes back a few years to an OoB conversation. Various people have occasionally brought it back up as demonstrating a lack of respect for the rules.
As far as I’m concerned this is a light-hearted discussion about something really unimportant; nothing more, so none of this is intended to be adversarial. Just passing the time.

The fairway mats model local rule…
Model Local Rule E-12
When a player’s ball lies in a part of the general area cut to fairway height or less and a putter is not being used for the stroke, the player must take free relief by lifting the original ball and placing the original ball or another ball on an artificial mat and play it from there. The mat must be placed on top of the spot where the ball came to rest.If a ball when placed rolls off the mat, the player must try to place it a second time. If the ball again does not stay on the mat, the mat must be moved to the nearest spot, not nearer the hole, where the ball will come to rest on the mat when placed.

Lots of use of the word “must” there. No mention of it being discretionary if the player has an alternative solution.
And at what point does a mat become a platform and cease to be a mat? I own many mats in my house and garage; none are rigid and all of them conform to the contours of the surface upon which they are lying.

All that makes sense. But there is nothing to say the mat must be level with the slope of the land. And that is the point being debated.

I have only used the rigid Spurk may. Any hint of a slope, the ball rolls off it.

 

[PaulMdj]

Not aimed at you. Goes back a few years to an OoB conversation. Various people have occasionally brought it back up as demonstrating a lack of respect for the rules.
As far as I’m concerned this is a light-hearted discussion about something really unimportant; nothing more, so none of this is intended to be adversarial. Just passing the time.

The fairway mats model local rule…
Model Local Rule E-12
When a player’s ball lies in a part of the general area cut to fairway height or less and a putter is not being used for the stroke, the player must take free relief by lifting the original ball and placing the original ball or another ball on an artificial mat and play it from there. The mat must be placed on top of the spot where the ball came to rest.If a ball when placed rolls off the mat, the player must try to place it a second time. If the ball again does not stay on the mat, the mat must be moved to the nearest spot, not nearer the hole, where the ball will come to rest on the mat when placed.

Lots of use of the word “must” there. No mention of it being discretionary if the player has an alternative solution.
And at what point does a mat become a platform and cease to be a mat? I own many mats in my house and garage; none are rigid and all of them conform to the contours of the surface upon which they are lying.

See the answers above:

The point of the mats is to protect the course, members comply with the Club instructions and we have introduced Model Local Rule E-12 for the previous 2 years and have included the fact that mats can not be bent or mishapen etc.

We have quite a severe slope on at least 5 of our holes and have never heard or seen anyone having an issue as to how the mats are used.

I genuinely don’t believe anyone would even consider trying to do anything more than get the ball to stay on the mat in the approx area (6 inches) that it came to rest. The only issue we did have was people using the plastic mats turning them on an angle and placing the ball on the last lug to enable them to use a driver.

I fear we are simply going round in circles and therefore I’m out of this thread.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Following another thread.
Can you use a fairway mat to reduce a slope by putting some of the stabilising lugs in the ground but leaving some out to create a ramp that lessens the slope.?

I think that’s not what the mat was designed for.

Absolutely, why wouldn't you?

 

[The Squirrel]

I can think of a couple of fairly steep uphill golf holes where if you teed off and had to stamp the mat in to be precisely in alignment with the ground (not that this is actually even possible unless the ground is all uniformly on the exact same slope - which it isn't in the real world) then there is no place that you could play from where the ball would stay on the mat - unless you went back to the tee. You can never advance down the hole without "cheating" if playing to some of the proposed rules here

Perhaps some posters should read Rule 14.2 and 14.3c(2), since those outline the procedure(s) that are contained in MLR E-12. Doing anything to alter conditions to get the ball to stay on on the spot is covered in Clarification 14.2c/3.
Please, just follow the Rules, their purpose is to ensure fair play. The Rules do not contain many lists of things that you cannot do, but do provide the consequences of not doing what the Rules outline how to proceed.
If it's a comp issue, bring it up to the Committee in charge - that's not me or anyone on here.

Now getting ready for lunch with the grumpy old men, leaving y'all to complain!

I did go and read them. I'm a newb and have barely read the rules so I'm happy to receive an explanation but I'm really not sure why you've quoted these rules?

14.3c(2) tells me what to do with a ball that rolls away when dropped. Try placing it on the mat, not dropping it - it'll work better and it's also required under MLR E-12. Rule 14.3c(2) therefore irrelevant to this whole situation. It actually clarifies this for you above in 14.3's first sentence: "This Rule applies only when a ball is dropped in the right way under Rule 14.3b." It therefore cannot apply here.

Literally the first sentence of 14.2 defines when it applies - and means it is irrelevant here as the ball is not being replaced on a spot.

MLR E-12 references neither of these rules and you are neither replacing nor dropping the ball so the idea that "those outline the procedure(s) that are contained in MLR E-12". In fact MLR E-12 is very careful to state that the ball is to be "PLACED" and not "REPLACED" and also specifically states that doing so constitutes the player taking "free relief" (which is, by definition, changing the location, not replacing). One of the reasons for this specific wording may be to clarify that rule 14 is not relevant in case someone tries to conflate it. [the fact you can use a different ball in direct contrast to 14.2a just sorta confirms that Rule 14 doesn't apply].

Rule 4.3:

• Using equipment (including a club or a ball) in an abnormal way in making a stroke. “Abnormal way” means a way that is fundamentally different than its intended use and is not normally recognized as part of playing the game.

It's an immense stretch to say that 4.3a prohibits placement of the mat flatter than the ground around it. A mat is very clearly designed to be used placed flat horizontally in a way that the ball sits on it and you hit the ball off the mat. In fact that's the only realistic way to use it. If I wanted to be particularly argumentative I could point out that anyone not placing a mat in a way such that the ball remains on it (when such a placement is possible) might in fact be breaking 4.3a by not using the equipment as clearly intended!

So fundamentally what I got out of that was:

1) there is absolutely nothing in the rules specifying that a mat should be exactly parallel to the ground
2) there is no prohibition on improving your lie - in fact by defining the placement of the ball on a mat as "free relief" the local rule acknowledges that you can, will, and should improve your lie!
3) the local rule does choose to prohibit certain lie-improving behaviours (e.g. using the tee holding the mat in to tee up the ball) yet chooses to remain silent on whether the mat needs to be exactly parallel to the ground. It had the option to outlaw slope reduction and declined to take it - therefore the behaviour is allowed.

[to the question of which rule is being broken]

MLR E-12 as explained by a golf referee.

Please post the exact sentence, or sentence-fragment in E-12 that contains the rule being broken. It's here for your convenience.

"When a player’s ball lies in a part of the general area cut to fairway height or less and a putter is not being used for the stroke, the player must take free relief by lifting the original ball and placing the original ball or another ball on an artificial mat and play it from there. The mat must be placed on top of the spot where the ball came to rest.If a ball when placed rolls off the mat, the player must try to place it a second time. If the ball again does not stay on the mat, the mat must be moved to the nearest spot, not nearer the hole, where the ball will come to rest on the mat when placed.If the ball on the mat is accidentally moved before a stroke is made, there is no penalty and the ball must be placed again on the mat.If a tee is used to secure the mat into the ground, the ball must not be placed on the tee."