Should you be able to get relief from divots in the fairway?

[Whereditgo]

sometimes it is intent, often it is an interpretation of the laws and the actions themselves. See the Johnny May try above

Absolutely, my point was when does interpretation happen in golf? I would suggest it should almost never happen, the example Chrisd gave of leaves being knocked off a tree on a practice swing is about the only one I can think of.

 

[r0wly86]

I meant in golf, may not have made that clear

in golf you only have to go back to Reed's drop a few weeks ago. Numerous arguments over what was the correct interpretation of the rules, Which could have all be avoided if he clarified the rules before making his drop rather than retrospectively

or you may left and check your ball if you have reasonable belief that it is cracked. To do so without that reasonable belief is a penalty. Now define reasonable belief or would that be a case of making an interpretation on the course based on events

 

[r0wly86]

Absolutely, my point was when does interpretation happen in golf? I would suggest it should almost never happen, the example Chrisd gave of leaves being knocked off a tree on a practice swing is about the only one I can think of.

see above

 

[rulefan]

For help with an online piece... thanks

You do have the opportunity to get relief. Divots are generally 'Loose Impediments'

 

[jim8flog]

I thought checking with your PPs was standard practice, I always do it and every group I've played in has. It's not that rules are complicated or obscure, it just saves hassle. Don't want to get onto the green and someone argue that your drop wasn't nearest point of relief etc. If everyone agrees what you are doing is correct then they can't complain later.

There are a few obscure rules though, practice swing hitting a tree, no penalty: practice swing hitting a tree and a twig falls off and hit the ground, penalty; real swing hits a tree and a twig falls off, no penalty

There is no requirement to check with your fellow competitors under the majoriy of the rules in the Rule book and in fact within the rule book there is a the following

c. Rules Issues in Stroke Play
(1) No Right to Decide Rules Issues by Agreement. If a referee or the Committee is not available in a reasonable time to help with a Rules issue:

• The players are encouraged to help each other in applying the Rules, but they have no right to decide a Rules issue by agreement and any such agreement they may reach is not binding on any player, a referee or the Committee.

 

[r0wly86]

Reed did clarify the rules before dropping.
What is in doubt is how the hole was made (although it was onviously made by his finger imo).

If you wish to check if your ball is damaged and it's not, you just replace it exactly as it was.

But if you don't have reasonable belief that it's scratched it is a penalty to lift and check

plus what Reed did was mark, pick up the ball and the clarify

 

[r0wly86]

There is no requirement to check with your fellow competitors under the majoriy of the rules in the Rule book and in fact within the rule book there is a the following

c. Rules Issues in Stroke Play
(1) No Right to Decide Rules Issues by Agreement. If a referee or the Committee is not available in a reasonable time to help with a Rules issue:

• The players are encouraged to help each other in applying the Rules, but they have no right to decide a Rules issue by agreement and any such agreement they may reach is not binding on any player, a referee or the Committee.

I never said there was a requirement

it's just a courtesy to let them know what you are doing and why, then if they disagree they can do so then. For instance if I was playing with you for the first time, I don't know your character, and I look over and you are picking your ball up and taking a drop, because you had decided there was an animal scrape. I would be looking at you very warily indeed, if you announced I am taking a drop because there's an animal scrape, then I would think fine, I wouldn't check. It is just a courtesy.

I have played in matches where my opponent has said he is doing something and I have raised an objection under the rules and we have consulted the rule book and found them to be wrong. Now if he had just unilaterally decided his interpretation was correct and carried on without telling me the situation would have become a lot worse

 

[chrisd]

in golf you only have to go back to Reed's drop a few weeks ago. Numerous arguments over what was the correct interpretation of the rules, Which could have all be avoided if he clarified the rules before making his drop rather than retrospectively

or you may left and check your ball if you have reasonable belief that it is cracked. To do so without that reasonable belief is a penalty. Now define reasonable belief or would that be a case of making an interpretation on the course based on events

As Traminator says, Reed did everything within the rules and the arguments after were all because it was Reed. If you believe your ball to be cracked then you'd follow the laid down rules , it's down to the player not the people he's playing with

 

[r0wly86]

If a player genuinely thinks their ball is embedded, they are entitled to mark it and check. There no requirement to call anyone else.

again we come back to reasonable belief

that can only be determined by interpretation. It is not clear cut whether someone has a genuine reasonable belief or is just trying to improve their position

 

[r0wly86]

As Traminator says, Reed did everything within the rules and the arguments after were all because it was Reed. If you believe your ball to be cracked then you'd follow the laid down rules , it's down to the player not the people he's playing with

you are missing the point. I know the rules are there for checking your ball, but the rules are defined as "if the player has a reasonable belief" which by definition is open to interpretation. If they hit a ball into the semi rough and it's a bit embedded, and they say oh I think it may be cracked, is that genuine reasonable belief or an attempt to improve the position. Interpretation

 

[chrisd]

again we come back to reasonable belief

that can only be determined by interpretation. It is not clear cut whether someone has a genuine reasonable belief or is just trying to improve their position

If he doesn't have reasonable belief he simply cheating if he lifts the ball

 

[chrisd]

you are missing the point. I know the rules are there for checking your ball, but the rules are defined as "if the player has a reasonable belief" which by definition is open to interpretation. If they hit a ball into the semi rough and it's a bit embedded, and they say oh I think it may be cracked, is that genuine reasonable belief or an attempt to improve the position. Interpretation

If he's cheating then he's cheating, maybe only he knows that but its not open to interpretation

 

[r0wly86]

If he doesn't a reasonable belief he simply cheating if he lifts the ball

exactly

now if someone you were playing with marked, and picked up their ball and put it down again without saying anything to you would you not be a bit curious at what they were doing? If they said the ball felt funny of the face I think it's cracked I'm going to check would you still be curious as to why and what they were doing.

I know you don't have to say anything, but I would rather tell my PPs what I was doing than do it and get accused of cheating later

 

[r0wly86]

If he's cheating then he's cheating, maybe only he knows that but its not open to interpretation

of course it is

also someone earlier said an animal scrape either is or isn't, technically true but unless your David Attenborough you won't necessarily be able to identify all types of scrapes. I have seen Mickelson invite the referee over to determine whether he was correct in saying something was a scrape. Why would he do that if it obvious and self evident

 

[Whereditgo]

you are missing the point. I know the rules are there for checking your ball, but the rules are defined as "if the player has a reasonable belief" which by definition is open to interpretation. If they hit a ball into the semi rough and it's a bit embedded, and they say oh I think it may be cracked, is that genuine reasonable belief or an attempt to improve the position. Interpretation

But you are interpreting their actions (and possibly their integrity), they are checking the facts, marking and lifting a ball to see if it is damaged or marking and lifting a ball to see if is is embedded.

 

[Whereditgo]

What about Chris Packham?

Michaela Strachan??

Michaela Strachan please

 

[chrisd]

of course it is

also someone earlier said an animal scrape either is or isn't, technically true but unless your David Attenborough you won't necessarily be able to identify all types of scrapes. I have seen Mickelson invite the referee over to determine whether he was correct in saying something was a scrape. Why would he do that if it obvious and self evident

In the pro game a decision by a referee is final and that is the main reason why the pro asks the referee to guide them.

In our case a player can lift and check a ball without referring to any other player, they no longer have to be observed doing it so as its solely down to the players honesty there is no interpretation involved. If a PP thinks the player has acted incorrectly he can ask the committee to make a decision

 

[USER1999]

of course it is

also someone earlier said an animal scrape either is or isn't, technically true but unless your David Attenborough you won't necessarily be able to identify all types of scrapes. I have seen Mickelson invite the referee over to determine whether he was correct in saying something was a scrape. Why would he do that if it obvious and self evident

Mickelson knows the rules. He probably knew he shouldn't get a drop in that instance. He does, he gets lucky, and gets the ruling he wants, probably because of who he is. Cheating? No, but not being 100% honest, hmm.

So which of my 3 playing partners is better equipped to define an animal scrape than me? I would guess none of them. Why would I push a decision onto them, that I am uncomfortable making myself? Because I am hoping they will say yes? Not a good reason to ask. Not in my view.

 

[Paperboy]

Err....yes, if its permitted, i.e. you are on the fairway. Why wouldn't you? Lift, clean and place.

I only do it if a massive lump of mud or a poor lie. Otherwise I still play it as it lies.

 

[jim8flog]

I never said there was a requirement

it's just a courtesy to let them know what you are doing and why, then if they disagree they can do so then. For instance if I was playing with you for the first time, I don't know your character, and I look over and you are picking your ball up and taking a drop, because you had decided there was an animal scrape. I would be looking at you very warily indeed, if you announced I am taking a drop because there's an animal scrape, then I would think fine, I wouldn't check. It is just a courtesy.

I have played in matches where my opponent has said he is doing something and I have raised an objection under the rules and we have consulted the rule book and found them to be wrong. Now if he had just unilaterally decided his interpretation was correct and carried on without telling me the situation would have become a lot worse

I virtually always tell my fellow competitors what I am doing unless it is blatantly obvious, e.g. taking relief from an obstruction it is up to them if they want to come and check and I take the same view the other way round tell the player to decide for themself f I know them well.

I quoted the stroke play rule it is slightly different for match play.