Tyre tracks GUR

16 posts / 0 new
Tyre tracks GUR

My course has tyre tracks all over the place as there has been a big effort this year to cut the rough down for winter.

Some tyre tracks are deep and GUR signs have been placed in these. However, we have no temporary local rule in place as advised in the decisions (25/16) and the suggested wording for Local Rules in running a competition.

It looks to me these GUR signs do not have any standing as the correct procedures have not been followed by having a local rule in place initially.

It may be that your local

It may be that your local rules define Ground Under Repair as any area with a GUR sign - although that begs the question of how you know what the margin of it is.  To put it another way, if the tyre tracks are marked as GUR in accordance with your Local Rules, there would be no need to have a specific LR about vehicle ruts.


Yes, Clubs often abuse this by having very generous Local Rules when what is needed is a Local Rule that easily clarifies a deep rut where the ball is not easily playable and a tyre indentation that can be played but the lie is bare and thus difficult but part of the rub of the green. Any example out there?  


My Club has recently introduced a Temporary Local Rule (TLR) that allows pick, clean and place through the green and in so doing denying any competition as qualifying or allowing any Supplemental Score. Anti-Congu in disallowing competitions that would otherwise be qualifying.

As i read the Rules the R&A need to agree such a TLR and given that the reason is simply wet and muddy conditions in the rough that do not represent 'abnormal conditions' it would be unlikely that the R&A would agree such a TLR. 

That said, there is provision in Appendix I of The Rules to allow pick, clean and return ball (not within 6 inches) 'through the green'. There is also provision (under Course Protection) in the Rules to allow artificial turf mats to be used 'through the green' and under Congu to allow qualfying competitions where fairway mats are compulsory.

Anyone out there ever seen a TLC allowing pick, clean and place (within 6 inches) through the green? 

The authorised local you

The authorised local you refer to in para 3 is actually Lift, Clean and Replace (LCR). Some clubs don't like invoking it because of the temptation to cheat. The are often some nice fluffy lies next to your muddy ball.

Re your question, many clubs use LCP but use the excuse that a) the course is not fit and b) they run lots of qualifiers during the year, so there is plenty of opportunit to get qualifiers in.


Thanks DH

Seems odd that the R&A (who need to be consulted) would actually sanction LCP when The Rules recommend LCR and that Congu/EG would sanction a Local Rule - given we are heading towards Slope- that positively encourages a reduction in Qualifying Competitions. 

Yet another example of fudge when clarity is needed!

flop. I am puzzled.

flop. I am puzzled.


Why do the R&A need to be consulted re an authorised LR?

When have they sanctioned LCP through the green?

What unauthorised LR have CONGU/EG sanctioned?


1. See Rule 33.8 b

2. LCR is authorised not LCP - the latter is a modification of the Rules

3. I understood your advice was that lots of Clubs have LCP rather than LCR to avoid cheating (despite the consequence of losing qualifying conditions). To be 'legal' they would have needed R&A authority?

4. My Club was  (allegedly) given authority by EG to a) introduce a temporary LR for LCP 'through the green' and b) thereby declare the course and any competitions or Supplemantary Scores non-qualifying.

3)  Yes

3)  Yes

4) It is more likely that EG would have said something like 'It's upto you but your comps will lose their qualifying status' rather than giving authority per se.

I'm afraid that some clubs invoke LCP TTG simply to avoid playing qualifiers, even though conditions would justify LCR. Which (LCP) of course is a breach of the CONGU regulations.


3. Why is the R&A agreeing to a LR for LCP when simply wet and muddy conditions are clearly not a 'local abnormal condition' (every Club has wettnes and mud) and isuch a LR s clearly not consistent with the policy (and Decisions) set forth in Appendix I?   

4. Why is EG giving easy consent to Clubs proposing this LR and its effect on qualifying status when there is no such latitude in Congu to do so (whether the affected Club has enough Qualifying  Competitions throughout the rest of the year or not)?

5. If Clubs are invoking LCP without due authority under the Rules, it is questionable whether the affected Club and their Members are entitled to affiliated status and Congu handicaps?  

3) Where are you getting this

3) Where are you getting this information from? I am not aware of that.

4) What exactly EG saying? Again I am not aware of their giving consent.

5) It would only affect their status if they used it in qualifiers or if they were using it as a method of avoiding the requirements to play qualifiers when conditions are satisfactory.

Clause 17.

Although a club committee or Handicapping Authority has the right to deprive certain competitions of their status as Qualifying Competitions this discretion should not be abused. It is considered to be outside the spirit and intent of the UHS to adjust the terms and conditions of an otherwise Qualifying Competition so that it is technically Non-Qualifying.


3. i. We agree R&A authority is required for a non-approved LR, ii. You have informed me that many Clubs operate LCP to avoid cheating if they were to comply with Appendix I and LCR and/or to ensure non-qualifying status, iii. My Club has (allegedly) consulted the R&A who referred them to EG (Rules), iv. I hope we both agree on what constitutes 'local abnormal conditions' and that should NOT include wet conditions and muddy ground, v. mud on a players ball is allowable as it can be construed as 'interfering with the proper playing of the game' but not simply because the ball lies on wet or bare muddy ground.

4. Again, allegedly, EG has consented to the TLR giving LCP and that such a LR would make for non-qualifying conditions. Not just in Clause 17 that you quote but in other parts of Congu there is clear guidance for Clubs NOT to avoid qualifying competitions. The Authorities have relaxed many conditions to allow qualifying conditions in the winter - even the use of fairway mats! Clubs who have a fair number of qualifying competitions should not be excused when it is clear that course conditions are satisfactory and not subject to those conditions specified in Congu like several temporary greens or bunkers out of play. Of course winter conditions are testing but as we know the CSS is intended to cater for that situation.     





I missed your 5.

There was an earlier post (late last year) from a lady Member whose club pre-determined no qualifying competitions in the winter.  That represents abuse that destroys the basic tenets of Congu and Slope. If the Authorities give Clubs discretion without specifying how and in what circumstances that discretion may be excercised you get abuse.  Congu specifies course conditions that would render a competition as being declared non-qualifying. I wonder what conditions were envisaged by the authors of Congu so as to grant Clubs such ill-defined discretion?   

3) I don't see any of that as

3) I don't see any of that as the R&A approving the wrong use of the LR.

Ultimately the R&A has no sanction over misuse of the Rules. They write and publish them and can act as arbiters or decision makes in the case of disputes or rules queries. But they cannot penalise any player or organisation for not following them.

4) EG have a problem with course conditions. We may or may not agree on what are 'local abnormal conditions' but I know from experience that clubs in my very large county have very different opinions to me (in both directions). Also, winter conditions vary widely in different parts of the country and with different types of course. Without being there, I would be reluctant to judge.

5) I don't know.

Of course, in poor conditions many clubs have trouble getting good fields out in qualifiers. Members prefer their roll-ups or winter leagues etc.They don't want to slog round in a formal comp which in all liklihood will end up as a RO at best or a nonq because there was frost and 6 temp greens in play. Many clubs have (very unofficial) winter handicaps for their internal groups. 

I really can't say anymore except to suggest that a letter to EG may or may not have an effect. But it may all be irrelevant in 2020.



3. If the R&A write Rules that say they should give approval of a non-approved LR and then it approves a LR that has nothing to do with local abnormal conditions or that does not interfere with the proper playing of the game, then there is no point in having the primary Rule. I agree it is not for the R&A to police every Club in the World but when it is approached as required it should uphold its own Rules.  

4. Decision 33-8/35 gives some guidance on what is 'abnormal'. Rocks etc and unplayable lies are not considered 'abnormal'. Further, if the Rules were intended to accommodate relief from wet or muddy conditions (casual water gets relif of course) then Appendix 1 b would have detailed the extent of relief and would include LCP. It does not. EG should uphold the Rules rather than create yet further ambiguity where there should be none. 

5. So other Clubs are allowed to bend, manipulate or ignore Congu just to allow a greater number to play social golf? Really! We might as well go the whole hog and fill in those things they call hazards and have gimmies if you reach the green! As for Winter Handicaps - well what is the point of the CSS? Rhetorical only.

Thanks for yor help DH!.   

I think I have flogged this one to death! Roll on SLOPE!



Slope will not address any of the issues you raise.