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."

 

[rulie]

Some comments for someone admittedly new to the Rules, recognizing that everyone's Rules journey starts somewhere:
14.3c(2) does talk about dropping, and I know that in MLR E-12, a ball will be placed on the mat. However, 14.3c(2) also provides what to do if a ball, after being dropped twice and rolling outside the relief area, and then required to be placed at a spot but will not stay on the required spot (similar to a ball being placed on the mat but rolling off the mat, as outlined in MLR E-12). The Rules (and MLR) are very careful about using consistent procedures for similar situations, hence my reference to the placing procedure in 14.3c(2) - the three bullet points in 14.3c(2) -as same as the procedure in MLR E-12 when the ball "placed" on the mat will not stay on the mat.
Wrt penalty for breach of MLR E-12, it's the last statement of the MLR: Penalty for Playing Ball from a Wrong Place in Breach of Local Rule (means this MLR, E-12) General Penalty Under Rule 14.7a. So, if the procedure in the second paragraph of MLR E-12 is not followed, the player incurs the general penalty for playing from a wrong place. That second paragraph in the MLR is the same procedure as outlined in the three bullets of 14.3c(2).

Further, I'm not sure that mats should be permitted for use in any handicap rounds or competitions. Sure, use them to protect the course (or close the course for its protection), but any "scores" so achieved should not be used for any purpose - particularly as it sounds like there is a tendency for some players to use them in ways to create advantages for personal gain, and not in the "spirit of the game". Just use them to protect the course while enjoying the opportunity to be outside and playing at "golf".
(mini rant over, and flame-proof suit on)

 

[Swango1980]

Some comments for someone admittedly new to the Rules, recognizing that everyone's Rules journey starts somewhere:
14.3c(2) does talk about dropping, and I know that in MLR E-12, a ball will be placed on the mat. However, 14.3c(2) also provides what to do if a ball, after being dropped twice and rolling outside the relief area, and then required to be placed at a spot but will not stay on the required spot (similar to a ball being placed on the mat but rolling off the mat, as outlined in MLR E-12). The Rules (and MLR) are very careful about using consistent procedures for similar situations, hence my reference to the placing procedure in 14.3c(2) - the three bullet points in 14.3c(2) -as same as the procedure in MLR E-12 when the ball "placed" on the mat will not stay on the mat.
Wrt penalty for breach of MLR E-12, it's the last statement of the MLR: Penalty for Playing Ball from a Wrong Place in Breach of Local Rule (means this MLR, E-12) General Penalty Under Rule 14.7a. So, if the procedure in the second paragraph of MLR E-12 is not followed, the player incurs the general penalty for playing from a wrong place. That second paragraph in the MLR is the same procedure as outlined in the three bullets of 14.3c(2).

Further, I'm not sure that mats should be permitted for use in any handicap rounds or competitions. Sure, use them to protect the course (or close the course for its protection), but any "scores" so achieved should not be used for any purpose - particularly as it sounds like there is a tendency for some players to use them in ways to create advantages for personal gain, and not in the "spirit of the game". Just use them to protect the course while enjoying the opportunity to be outside and playing at "golf".
(mini rant over, and flame-proof suit on)

You have basically shown your ignorance around the rules involving fairway mats. They ARE allowed for handicapping rounds.

 

[The Squirrel]

Thanks for the clarification - appreciated - as I stated right up top I'm a rules newb so was hoping that by posting someone would challenge and I'd learn something.

Of course none of rule 14 applies if the ball doesn't roll off your correctly placed as intended to be used (so as near horizontal as possible) Spurk mat, so 14 then becomes moot.

If the end argument of someone well versed in the rules, who explicitly wishes to restrict mat use, can only find the arguments that mats shouldn't be allowed in comps in (well they are - and such usage is specifically permiited within E-12) and that using them to improve lie isn't in the spirit of the game (which I deal with underneath and is actually is just a concession that "I don't like it but it's just my viewpoint; there's no prohibition in the rules") then I think we've reached our endpoint.

1. Mats purpose is specifically stated within the rule E-12 as requiring the player "MUST take free relief". Relief in golf means improving the position or lie of the ball, so there is explicitly an expectation that you can and will improve the lie (note improving the position, in contrast, is specifically disallowed by E-12). Doing what a rule actually not just allows but REQUIRES you to do (improve your lie by placing a ball on a mat) cannot be against the spirit of the game.​

2. It is allowed to use anchors for the mat (as a tee is given as one example of a method of anchoring, confirming this). There is no requirement that these anchors must be 100% embedded within the ground and the rule itself acknowledges they needn't be by referencing you might be tempted to hit from that tee example - don't! Mats of the Spurk type are intended to be used horizontal so that the ball can sit on them ready to be hit. This is self-evident - it's the only way they can ever be used! Using them horizontal with a bit of anchor exposed is therefore allowed under E4.3 - you're using them as close as possible to how they are intended.​

3. Of course on severe slopes not even this will keep the ball sat on the mat (of any type), and yes the rules cover what to do in this eventuality.​

4. Any argument that using a mat to improve lie is not allowed under the rules then falls away as fatally flawed. Any argument that a rigid mat shouldn't be as close as possible to horizontal or that all the mat anchors must be fully within the ground also falls away as fatally flawed.​

5. Therefore using a mat horizontal is allowed even when the ground is not entirely horizontal at every last point the mat sits on.​

Phew. I hope we're done; although I doubt it

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Some comments for someone admittedly new to the Rules, recognizing that everyone's Rules journey starts somewhere:
14.3c(2) does talk about dropping, and I know that in MLR E-12, a ball will be placed on the mat. However, 14.3c(2) also provides what to do if a ball, after being dropped twice and rolling outside the relief area, and then required to be placed at a spot but will not stay on the required spot (similar to a ball being placed on the mat but rolling off the mat, as outlined in MLR E-12). The Rules (and MLR) are very careful about using consistent procedures for similar situations, hence my reference to the placing procedure in 14.3c(2) - the three bullet points in 14.3c(2) -as same as the procedure in MLR E-12 when the ball "placed" on the mat will not stay on the mat.
Wrt penalty for breach of MLR E-12, it's the last statement of the MLR: Penalty for Playing Ball from a Wrong Place in Breach of Local Rule (means this MLR, E-12) General Penalty Under Rule 14.7a. So, if the procedure in the second paragraph of MLR E-12 is not followed, the player incurs the general penalty for playing from a wrong place. That second paragraph in the MLR is the same procedure as outlined in the three bullets of 14.3c(2).

Further, I'm not sure that mats should be permitted for use in any handicap rounds or competitions. Sure, use them to protect the course (or close the course for its protection), but any "scores" so achieved should not be used for any purpose - particularly as it sounds like there is a tendency for some players to use them in ways to create advantages for personal gain, and not in the "spirit of the game". Just use them to protect the course while enjoying the opportunity to be outside and playing at "golf".
(mini rant over, and flame-proof suit on)

Fully agree - imo as well

Have “fun” comps etc but no HC qualifying events or GP cards whilst using mats