Rabbit scrappings relief

[salfordlad]

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

Pragmatic calls that cannot be defended by the rule book sometimes get made in tournaments.

 

[rulefan]

Pragmatic calls that cannot be defended by the rule book sometimes get made in tournaments.

A few hours ago the TD confirmed that he got his response from the R&A

 

[salfordlad]

A few hours ago the TD confirmed that he got his response from the R&A

Thank you. Which implies something different than discussed earlier - it seems to suggest the R&A is broadening their interpretation outside the previous (careful) words published on this issue.

 

[rulefan]

Thank you. Which implies something different than discussed earlier - it seems to suggest the R&A is broadening their interpretation outside the previous (careful) words published on this issue.

You said earlier "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."
Presumably the person from the R&A is on board.

 

[salfordlad]

You said earlier "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."
Presumably the person from the R&A is on board.

Those bolded words are not clear to me at all. Compare "identifiable as a cast" (language from old Decision cited in post #27) versus "identifiable as altered" (language from your TD that has now been affirmed as from the R&A). If the ground has had a molehill completely removed/totally flattened leaving a bit of flat bare ground then I suggest it cannot be identified as a cast any longer (it's just where a cast used to be), but it is clearly identifiable as altered. This is why I suggested the tournament ruling guidance you got was not consistent with the previous Decision. And this is why I am now suggesting that the R&A non-public ruling here goes beyond the previous public Decision (that the mapping summary suggests is still correct).
I don't have any problem with altering my Rule book whenever RBs alter a previously published view, the Rule book is a dynamic, evolving creature. But making such changes by private ruling without widespread publicity or updates to the published book raises longer-term problems for having all players and officials on the same page.

 

[VVega]

Looks like this thread has become a proverbial mountain out of … wait for it… a molehill ?

 

[rulefan]

Those bolded words are not clear to me at all. Compare "identifiable as a cast" (language from old Decision cited in post #27) versus "identifiable as altered" (language from your TD that has now been affirmed as from the R&A). If the ground has had a molehill completely removed/totally flattened leaving a bit of flat bare ground then I suggest it cannot be identified as a cast any longer (it's just where a cast used to be), but it is clearly identifiable as altered. This is why I suggested the tournament ruling guidance you got was not consistent with the previous Decision. And this is why I am now suggesting that the R&A non-public ruling here goes beyond the previous public Decision (that the mapping summary suggests is still correct).
I don't have any problem with altering my Rule book whenever RBs alter a previously published view, the Rule book is a dynamic, evolving creature. But making such changes by private ruling without widespread publicity or updates to the published book raises longer-term problems for having all players and officials on the same page.

I have just spoken to the TD and he says he cannot remember the exact words. It may have been 'identifiable as altered' or 'identifiable as such' but he was quite clear that the flattened mole hills were identifiable.

 

[salfordlad]

I have just spoken to the TD and he says he cannot remember the exact words. It may have been 'identifiable as altered' or 'identifiable as such' but he was quite clear that the flattened mole hills were identifiable.

That seems to muddy the waters again. It is either identifiable as a cast - in which case the old Decision remains the valid guidance or something different and the Decision is no longer valid guidance - they are the only options.

 

[rulefan]

That seems to muddy the waters again. It is either identifiable as a cast - in which case the old Decision remains the valid guidance or something different and the Decision is no longer valid guidance - they are the only options.

How would you have ruled under 25/23?

 

[Colin L]

Looks like this thread has become a proverbial mountain out of … wait for it… a molehill ?

Get your coat. ?
(Hope it’s not moleskin.)

 

[salfordlad]

How would you have ruled under 25/23?

I put my view earlier and I very much agree with Colin's answer in #26, copied here:

"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."

That strikes me as consistent with the Decision. If it is cleared bare ground, it can no longer be identified as a cast, it is only where the cast used to be.

 

[rulefan]

I put my view earlier and I very much agree with Colin's answer in #26, copied here:

"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."

That strikes me as consistent with the Decision. If it is cleared bare ground, it can no longer be identified as a cast, it is only where the cast used to be.

Most, if not all, bare ground mole hills I have encountered have simply been flattened by greenkeepers' machinery. Certainly identifiable as such. Any cleared bare earth has always been as a result of other, greenkeeper's workings (or accidental chemical spillage).

 

[Colin L]

The only molehills I've seen on golf courses (and that's only a few courses) have been off the fairway and in territory where you would be thankful if your ball was on a flattened ex-molehill rather than in what was around them.

 

[salfordlad]

For those with long memories - here's the fruits of some mole research: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=604988457560557

 

[rulefan]

For those with long memories - here's the fruits of some mole research: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=604988457560557

Gosh, that was a long time ago.