Status of removed aereation plugs

[IanMcC]

Good Day. Our course has recently hollow tined the greens, and the plugs removed from the greens have been deposited in two different ways. On some greens these plugs have been gathered in 6 or 7 piles around the greenside fringe. They look like large molehills. On other greens (I assume two different greenstaff groups were involved), the plugs have been scattered around the fringe, making a roughly 2 yard deep area of aereation plugs. These plugs are roughly 3cm long, with a diameter of about 6mm. My mind started wondering the relief options for the two different scenarios. I decided that the piled plugs were 'piled for later removal', and therefore met the GUR criterea. The plugs that had been scattered, however, to me were simply loose impediments, and no free relief would be applicable. Does the group agree with this? How big does a pile of debris have to be before it can be classed as 'piled for later removal'? Will these scattered plugs be collected later by the greenstaff, or is it common practice for these plugs just to be left on course and turn to compost/mud? Any pointers appreciated Thanks.

 

[rulefan]

I would agree with your thoughts.

I'm not sure how usual it is to leave the cores scattered, our greenkeepers simply pile them up and collect them on the go or later in the day. But when scattered, they are LIs whilst identifiable as such.

 

[Steven Rules]

I think your assessment of the status of the two sets of plugs sounds right. These extracts from the definitions of Ground Under Repair and Loose Impediments are relevant:

*Ground Under Repair includes grass cuttings, leaves and any other material piled for later removal.

*Any natural materials that are piled for removal are also loose impediments.

*Any materials left on the course that are not intended to be removed are not ground under repair unless the Committee has defined them as such.

*Loose Impediments are any unattached natural object such as clumps of compacted soil (including aeration plugs).

If there is doubt about the status of that second category of aeration plugs (and there seems to be an element of doubt in your mind) then it would be worthwhile asking the Committee to clarify their status.

 

[IanMcC]

I'm glad that I reached the correct conclusion if I was refereeing in this situation. Let's play devils advocate for a moment. Rule 13.1c states that creating a pathway to the hole on the putting green by restoring the green to its original condition incurs a penalty. Am I right in assuming that if someone were to create a small path directly on the putting line through the plugs, and putted through this path using the plugs as walls to this path, then no penalty would apply as it is in the General Area?

 

[Steven Rules]

Acknowledging that you were simply seeking to explore a hypothetical, I think you are have missed a few key aspects of the Rules.

13.1c(2), which contains the bit about creating a path to the hole that you referred to, is all about repairing damage to the putting green. Damage to the puuting green is described at the end of 13.1c(2) and doesn't include the presence (or removal) of loose impediments. Therefore, my opinion is that 13.1c(2) is not relevant here.

8.1 is clear that a player cannot improve their line of play EXCEPT that the removal of loose impediments is permitted. 15.1a reinforces that a player may remove loose impediments anywhere on or off the course.

8.1b(2) is explicit that loose impediments may be removed even if doing so improves the conditions affecting the stroke (i.e. in this case the line of play)

Clarification 8.1d(1)/2 makes it clear that the player may choose to remove some loose impediments, while simultaneously leaving other loose impediments in their original place, if that would assist the player’s next stroke.

 

[rulie]

Acknowledging that you were simply seeking to explore a hypothetical, I think you are have missed a few key aspects of the Rules.

13.1c(2), which contains the bit about creating a path to the hole that you referred to, is all about repairing damage to the putting green. Damage to the puuting green is described at the end of 13.1c(2) and doesn't include the presence (or removal) of loose impediments. Therefore, my opinion is that 13.1c(2) is not relevant here.

8.1 is clear that a player cannot improve their line of play EXCEPT that the removal of loose impediments is permitted. 15.1a reinforces that a player may remove loose impediments anywhere on or off the course.

8.1b(2) is explicit that loose impediments may be removed even if doing so improves the conditions affecting the stroke (i.e. in this case the line of play)

Clarification 8.1d(1)/2 makes it clear that the player may choose to remove some loose impediments, while simultaneously leaving other loose impediments in their original place, if that would assist the player’s next stroke.

And the player would need to be conscious of "undue delay".

 

[IanMcC]

Played again today, and all the plugs had been removed by the greenstaff. Which raises the next hypothetical question, I suppose. We're the scattered plugs also 'piled for later removal'?

 

[rulie]

Played again today, and all the plugs had been removed by the greenstaff. Which raises the next hypothetical question, I suppose. We're the scattered plugs also 'piled for later removal'?

They were removed, but, based on your description, not "piled for removal" at the time you were playing.

 

[rulefan]

Played again today, and all the plugs had been removed by the greenstaff. Which raises the next hypothetical question, I suppose. We're the scattered plugs also 'piled for later removal'?

I would suggest that 'scattered' and 'piled' are not synonymous.

 

[cliveb]

8.1b(2) is explicit that loose impediments may be removed even if doing so improves the conditions affecting the stroke (i.e. in this case the line of play)

Just an observation: surely this is a redundant clause. If removing a loose impediment didn't improve conditions for my stroke, it's not worth bothering to do so.

 

[rulefan]

Just an observation: surely this is a redundant clause. If removing a loose impediment didn't improve conditions for my stroke, it's not worth bothering to do so.

Hardly redundant. The introduction explains just why the whole rule exists. 8.1a(2) tells you when LIs can't be removed and in particular, 8.1b(2) tells you the action must be reasonable