Rabbit scrappings relief

[Colin L]

When does a molehill become an ex molehill ?
We have several at ours ,although they have been flattened by mowers they are still not completely level with the surrounding area.
Is there a cut off height.

I guess the cut off height depends on the setting of the mower, but that's not helpful.

 

[salfordlad]

When does a molehill become an ex molehill ?
We have several at ours ,although they have been flattened by mowers they are still not completely level with the surrounding area.
Is there a cut off height.

I don't think there is any objective answer to this, the player has to judge whether the on ground facts meet the definition of animal hole. If in doubt, take a photo and ask your Committee to guide you.

 

[rulie]

When does a molehill become an ex molehill ?

When it's no longer a "hill".

 

[clubchamp98]

When it's no longer a "hill".

That’s definitely open to argument.
One man’s hill is another man’s mountain.
With the height of the rough mowers it could still leave a significant “cow pat” size mound.

 

[jim8flog]

Norelief from a flattened molehill --

Not particularly helpful now but I see it was in the decisions book up until the 2002-03 decisions book.

I therefore presume if the R&A took it out of the decisions book back then they decided to allow relief from then unless a local rule was created.

I also have found some clubs that have such a local rule but what I found predates 2019 as they reference the wrong Abnormal Ground Condition rules.

 

[Colin L]

Norelief from a flattened molehill --

Not particularly helpful now but I see it was in the decisions book up until the 2002-03 decisions book.

I therefore presume if the R&A took it out of the decisions book back then they decided to allow relief from then unless a local rule was created.

I also have found some clubs that have such a local rule but what I found predates 2019 as they reference the wrong Abnormal Ground Condition rules.

From the 2016 -2019 Decisions, relief was given for a molehill or the remains of one provided it was identifiable as such. I don't think a completely flattened bit of earth is identifiable as even the remains of a molehill, the clue being, as suggested above, being in "hill". Sorry I don't have time at the moment to look up the "roadmap" to see if that principle continues through to the current Rules.

 

[salfordlad]

From the 2016 -2019 Decisions, relief was given for a molehill or the remains of one provided it was identifiable as such. I don't think a completely flattened bit of earth is identifiable as even the remains of a molehill, the clue being, as suggested above, being in "hill". Sorry I don't have time at the moment to look up the "roadmap" to see if that principle continues through to the current Rules.

The old Decision was 25/23

Molehills are casts made by a burrowing animal. Accordingly, a player having
interference from a molehill, or the remains of a molehill, is entitled to
relief under Rule 25-1b, provided, in the latter instance, the remains are still
identifiable as a cast made by a burrowing animal.

Mapping Summary says no change in 2019 and new reference is Definition of Animal Hole.

 

[Colin L]

Mapping Summary says no change in 2019 and new reference is Definition of Animal Hole.

Thanks for looking that up.

 

[rulefan]

I don't believe "well trodden and completely flat with just compacted soil" cuts it as ACC. Once that ground is back level with no surface irregularity, no loose material and no hole I can't see how it retains ACC status - it is just bare ground like any other bare ground on the course. IMO, "altered" is not intended to cover an unspecified time extension beyond when the ground has been returned to level. Of course, the Committee could mark any bare areas it wishes to provide relief from.

PS Sorry for delayed response but have been away.

I remember on one of my early referee training courses at Woodhall Spa being shown flattened molehills and being told they were AGC. The instructor was on the R&A rules committee at the time.
During a recent county competition when I gave a player relief, I reported the potential problem to the TD by radio. Subsequently he called back saying he had had confirmation (presumably from the R&A) that 'identifiable as altered' is sufficient.

 

[salfordlad]

PS Sorry for delayed response but have been away.

I remember on one of my early referee training courses at Woodhall Spa being shown flattened molehills and being told they were AGC. The instructor was on the R&A rules committee at the time.
During a recent county competition when I gave a player relief, I reported the potential problem to the TD by radio. Subsequently he called back saying he had had confirmation (presumably from the R&A) that 'identifiable as altered' is sufficient.

I'm not sure we are saying anything different. If you wish to interpret those three words 'identifiable as altered' as going beyond old D25/23, then I suggest that is outside the public authority the R&A signed up to in that Decision which is now represented by the definition of animal hole. If you interpret those words as consistent with old D25/23 then I am on board. Clearly, at some point in time on the spot that used to be a molehill when there is no hole, no surface irregularity and no loose material then the mere memory that there was once a molehill there will no longer cut it as justification for relief. But as with any ACC, we want clear guidance to the field, we don't want different people standing around scratching their heads and coming up with inconsistent answers. If there is doubt, ideally they are marked. Or for a tournament where that is impractical, guidance to players to pull in a referee to make the call could also help deliver consistency.

 

[rulefan]

If you interpret those words as consistent with old D25/23 then I am on board.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

PS Sorry for delayed response but have been away.

I remember on one of my early referee training courses at Woodhall Spa being shown flattened molehills and being told they were AGC. The instructor was on the R&A rules committee at the time.
During a recent county competition when I gave a player relief, I reported the potential problem to the TD by radio. Subsequently he called back saying he had had confirmation (presumably from the R&A) that 'identifiable as altered' is sufficient.

Thankn you for the clarification there, good to know

 

[KenL]

What about rabbit droppings?.
I suspect a FC of substituting dried dog food .

My wee dog eats rabbit poo like it is dry dog food. ?

 

[salfordlad]

My wee dog eats rabbit poo like it is dry dog food. ?

Loose impediments may be removed by any means.

 

[Eddie]

Still no definitive answer then?
Does a hill flattened by green staff then not count forna drop? Im all for it ....one way or the other .

 

[rulefan]

Still no definitive answer then?
Does a hill flattened by green staff then not count forna drop? Im all for it ....one way or the other .

IMO 'identifiable as altered' is the criterion. But see posts #26 onwards.

 

[salfordlad]

IMO 'identifiable as altered' is the criterion. But see posts #26 onwards.

That is an oral answer you received at a particular tournament from a source you are not entirely aware of, and it is an answer not entirely consistent with the published words.

 

[rulefan]

That is an oral answer you received at a particular tournament from a source you are not entirely aware of, and it is an answer not entirely consistent with the published words.

But until I am advised otherwise I'm happy to go with it.

 

[Colin L]

I've just remembered a course where the "local rule" (i.e. nothing written but firmly believed and practised by the members) was that you got relief for a molehill only if it interfered with your downswing, not your follow through. It was at the same tournament that I just stopped a player in time from lifting his ball to take line of play relief from a bell at the side of the fairway on the say-so of a member who was acting as a spotter. But we always do, explained the member. Pretty normal sort of club, I suppose.

 

[salfordlad]

I've just remembered a course where the "local rule" (i.e. nothing written but firmly believed and practised by the members) was that you got relief for a molehill only if it interfered with your downswing, not your follow through. It was at the same tournament that I just stopped a player in time from lifting his ball to take line of play relief from a bell at the side of the fairway on the say-so of a member who was acting as a spotter. But we always do, explained the member. Pretty normal sort of club, I suppose.

So for that ball right behind the molehill, you get a ball in the face to go with the broken wrist. Someone really put deep thought into that.