Fallen leaves called abnormal conditions

[clubchamp98]

Wouldn't the same apply to GUR in the middle of the fairway?

If you see the ball go into it yes.

Just a quick question .
“ Have you ever lost a ball you thought was on the fairway”
But you were wrong and it was later found in the rough.?
I have and I would wager lots have to.
How anyone can say 95% certain is just nonsense imo of course
Other opinions are avaliable.

 

[Steven Rules]

anyone ever heard of this - balls on the fairways not found due to muddy conditions or fallen leaves are allowed to drop a ball for free (under rule 16.1) where they expected to find the ball, similar but off the fairway not found are lost balls.

I'm sure that might lead to some flexible interpretations if the ball was expected to be found near the edge of the fairway / edge of the rough

If you can’t find it how do you know it’s on the fairway ?
Sounds like the oob stupid rule they tried to implement.

I think I see what's going on here.

Swango and clubchamp are fixated on oldtimer's query if anybody has heard of this mythical and unauthorised local rule. Ball lost under leaves on the fairway - ok, free drop. Ball lost under leaves in the rough - lost ball. I would agree with them. If it actually exists somewhere then it is 'stupid'.

Rulie and rulefan are correctly and validly defending the authorised Model Local Rule, which makes no distinction between fairway and rough.

It seems to me that Swango and clubchamp are arguing against apples (that probably don't actually exist) whereas rulie and rulefan are defending oranges.

 

[rulefan]

If you see the ball go into it yes.

? If you see it go into the pond you would go back to the tee? Really?

 

[clubchamp98]

I think I see what's going on here.

Swango and clubchamp are fixated on oldtimer's query if anybody has heard of this mythical and unauthorised local rule. Ball lost under leaves on the fairway - ok, free drop. Ball lost under leaves in the rough - lost ball. I would agree with them. If it actually exists somewhere then it is 'stupid'.

Rulie and rulefan are correctly and validly defending the authorised Model Local Rule, which makes no distinction between fairway and rough.

It seems to me that Swango and clubchamp are arguing against apples (that probably don't actually exist) whereas rulie and rulefan are defending oranges.

Unfortunately these things happen when rules written in black and white give you a margin of guesswork.

Plus it’s how you learn.
It’s pissing down here and I am stuck in the house

 

[clubchamp98]

? If you see it go into the pond you would go back to the tee? Really?

“If you see the ball go into it then yes “you get a drop is what I meant.
Poorly worded on my part apologies.

But you have seen it go in and are not just guessing.

 

[Swango1980]

I think I see what's going on here.

Swango and clubchamp are fixated on oldtimer's query if anybody has heard of this mythical and unauthorised local rule. Ball lost under leaves on the fairway - ok, free drop. Ball lost under leaves in the rough - lost ball. I would agree with them. If it actually exists somewhere then it is 'stupid'.

Rulie and rulefan are correctly and validly defending the authorised Model Local Rule, which makes no distinction between fairway and rough.

It seems to me that Swango and clubchamp are arguing against apples (that probably don't actually exist) whereas rulie and rulefan are defending oranges.

Indeed. My original reply, and comments since then, were a response to:

"balls on the fairways not found due to muddy conditions or fallen leaves are allowed to drop a ball for free (under rule 16.1) where they expected to find the ball, similar but off the fairway not found are lost balls."

I didn't go searching the Model Local Rules, so assumed this to either be a factual local rule, or for it to be challenged directly by others initially (the fact that it wasn't, or that I missed it, meant that I continued to assume the local rule must be correct as originally described, hence the conversation then went further into 95% certainty)

 

[clubchamp98]

You drive straight over the brow. Can no longer see the ball. You get over the hill and find a small deep pond in the middles of a pristine, wide fairway. Can't see the ball anywhere.
Back to the tee?

Would that be 95% certain ? Probably 100% for me.
Why would you have a 5% dought.
But in this scenario if the fairway was covered in leaves is the ball on the fairway or in the pond.

 

[Steven Rules]

Unfortunately these things happen when rules written in black and white give you a margin of guesswork.

Aside from in oldtimer's original post, the bit about lost under leaves on fairway versus lost under leaves in rough is not (authorised to be) written anywhere in black and white or any other colour for that matter.

I am 95% certain that 95% of this thread has been unnecessary.

 

[clubchamp98]

Aside from in oldtimer's original post, the bit about lost under leaves on fairway versus lost under leaves in rough is not (authorised to be) written anywhere in black and white or any other colour for that matter.

I am 95% certain that 95% of this thread has been unnecessary.

I am pretty certain that the 95% is written in the rules for certain situations or is that wrong.
The disscusion moved on from the leaves.

But to be fair this forum would not exist if it had to pass a necessity test.

 

[rulefan]

I am pretty certain that the 95% is written in the rules for certain situations or is that wrong.

You are right. Where it is appropriate it is in the applicable rule.

 

[jim8flog]

There is one key difference between now and pre 2019.

Now you can go thrashing around in the leaves without the risk of a penalty.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Totally different imo.
A PA is just that it’s a penalty , but it’s the virtually certain bit I don’t like.
There’s a 5% chance you could make the wrong decision in YOUR own favour.
How many golfers will say” oh no I don’t think it was on the fairway, I will drop in the rough under penalty”
Very few would be my guess, leading to some heated debate.

Eh?….If the player is accepting it is lost in the rough, then his option is not “to drop one”.
It is lost… shot to be replayed under penalty.

 

[clubchamp98]

Eh?….If the player is accepting it is lost in the rough, then his option is not “to drop one”.
It is lost… shot to be replayed under penalty.

Have you read the thread properly???

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Have you read the thread properly???

Well, what I have read is that there may be a local rule in force for a particular hole that has conditions of accumulation of leaves ,into which a ball may be hit ,within the general area, and either the ball may be difficult to play or indeed may not be able to be found because of the accumulation.
if that is the case then a free drop is allowed.
Whether the ball is in the accumulation or not is determined by the same level of certainty as what determines whether a ball has gone into a (water ) penalty area, I.e. the old 95%, it seems.
You appear not to agree with that. You appear to be saying you only know if it is in the accumulation if it is found, yes?
But if that is so, then the rule quoted by Jim8flog in post 3 would not use the phrase
. At certain times of the year, piles of loose impediments such as leaves, seeds or acorns may make it difficult for a player to find or play his or her ball.
The words “find or” would not be there, would they?
Furthermore, the relevant place where this rule applies (when it applies), is not only the fairway, but it is the General area.

However, if you were right that the ball needs to be found before relief is afforded, then it follows that if it is not found, then it is a lost ball ,per se.

If it is a lost ball then how in whatever circumstance can you be “dropping in the rough under penalty “ ? You go back to play the shot again under penalty.

You can only be dropping in the rough if you are playing in the belief that you are in the rough and somewhere under the accumulation and under this rule.

Then you would drop without penalty, no?

So, were you talking about a lost ball per se ( as you see it), or a “lost”ball under this rule.
Either way…….?

 

[clubchamp98]

Well, what I have read is that there may be a local rule in force for a particular hole that has conditions of accumulation of leaves ,into which a ball may be hit ,within the general area, and either the ball may be difficult to play or indeed may not be able to be found because of the accumulation.
if that is the case then a free drop is allowed.
Whether the ball is in the accumulation or not is determined by the same level of certainty as what determines whether a ball has gone into a (water ) penalty area, I.e. the old 95%, it seems.
You appear not to agree with that. You appear to be saying you only know if it is in the accumulation if it is found, yes?
But if that is so, then the rule quoted by Jim8flog in post 3 would not use the phrase
. At certain times of the year, piles of loose impediments such as leaves, seeds or acorns may make it difficult for a player to find or play his or her ball.
The words “find or” would not be there, would they?
Furthermore, the relevant place where this rule applies (when it applies), is not only the fairway, but it is the General area.

However, if you were right that the ball needs to be found before relief is afforded, then it follows that if it is not found, then it is a lost ball ,per se.

If it is a lost ball then how in whatever circumstance can you be “dropping in the rough under penalty “ ? You go back to play the shot again under penalty.

You can only be dropping in the rough if you are playing in the belief that you are in the rough and somewhere under the accumulation and under this rule.

Then you would drop without penalty, no?

So, were you talking about a lost ball per se ( as you see it), or a “lost”ball under this rule.
Either way…….?

See post #11 that’s what I think.!
I quite clearly said “ how many golfers would” then abuse the rule if it was in place.
That is a direct answer to this stupid LR .

 

[jim8flog]

Given the amount of leaves on our course in Autumn (the leaf blowers and leaf sweepers are out nearly every day) it is something we discussed at committee but we too thought it was rule whilst good in it's intention was very likely to be abused so we decided not to adopt it.

I always worry when my ball is headed to an area where the giant vacuum cleaner is sucking up all the leaves as it is powerful enough to take a ball with it.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Given the amount of leaves on our course in Autumn (the leaf blowers and leaf sweepers are out nearly every day) it is something we discussed at committee but we too thought it was rule whilst good in it's intention was very likely to be abused so we decided not to adopt it.

I always worry when my ball is headed to an area where the giant vacuum cleaner is sucking up all the leaves as it is powerful enough to take a ball with it.

Yes, there are holes on our course where the leaves are prolific. What are particularly annoying are the silver birch leaves. Being white they do your head in.?
as to abuse of the rule, not sure that’s too big a problem in that it doesn’t apply to whole course. As I understand it, a particular hole or area has to be specified where the rule will apply. Hardly going to be anything other than a very rare event ( the abuse, that is)

 

[IanM]

Since under whs, all golf courses are fully rated for handicap 12 months a year, surely there's an algorithm for fallen leaves, varying degrees of mud, acorns and lying snow??

 

[rosecott]

Since under whs, all golf courses are fully rated for handicap 12 months a year, surely there's an algorithm for fallen leaves, varying degrees of mud, acorns and lying snow??

PCC

 

[rulefan]

Since under whs, all golf courses are fully rated for handicap 12 months a year, surely there's an algorithm for fallen leaves, varying degrees of mud, acorns and lying snow??

Not so.
"A course must be rated as if normal midseason conditions exist. In most areas, midseason conditions with respect to fairways, length of rough, foliage and speed of the greens exist in the middles of summer."
In practice ratings are very rarely done in the UK during outside the period April thru September. And then only if the weather conditions are right.
eg If the greens have been cut to 6mm in early April on the day of the rating but the club states this only temporary and they would normally be at 4mm, the rating team would take this into account.

Edit: Oops. Correction above.