At my course, some greens have small (1-2 cm) holes in them which have been clearly made by some animal. Most people think magpies.

Is it permissible to repair these prior to putting if they are on or near the line of the putt?

Cheers, Peter.

You are only allowed to repair old hole-plugs and ball marks on the putting green. Any other marks to the putting green must not be repaired if it might assist the player in his subsequent play of the holes.
See Rule 16-1c.

If they are made by birds they are an abnormal ground condition. You can’t repair them, but you are allowed to move your ball (no closer to the hole) until the line of putt is no longer affected.

25-1a: “If the player’s ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an abnormal ground condition on the putting green intervenes on his line of putt.”

Hi Publish,

I think the Committee has to clarify the status of the holes, the same as when the green has been hollow tined or for holes dug by dogs.
A temporary Local Rule would suffice.

Johanna

If the players see a bird make the holes, or if it’s known that birds are making these holes, there’s no need for a Local Rule – Rule 25-1a covers.

And what if you don’t see a bird make it? How can you tell an aeration hole after tining from a hole picked by a bird?

To make things clear to players on a notice board does no harm at all, even if it is covered by the Rules.

RD

I wonder if many players actually know there is a term ‘abnormal ground condition’ (as opposed to GUR). And that birds are featured in the definition (as opposed to rabbits).

AAA it is the point I’m trying to make with my notice board ;-) !

AAA – rabbits are in the definition as well.

RD
I meant that everyone knows about rabbits. But they probably wouldn’t know where to confirm that they got relief from their scrapes.

Fortunately we do not have a problem with Rabbits. WE do have a small problem with Corellas, A reasonably large breed of parrot that like to hang off flag sticks & flags & sometimes chew out the edge of the hole.Our other problem lately is wild pigs, Fortunately only in the longer grass but they do make a mess & theabnormal ground condition rule does apply.therefore most of our members do know this rule.

Our other problem lately is wild pigs ..
.. the abnormal ground condition rule does apply.therefore most of our members do know this rule.

An “abnormal ground condition” is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

Where does a wild pig fit in ? Or is this when pigs might fly ?

Pigs dig up stuff, that could be classed as burrowing

Pigs dig up stuff, that could be classed as burrowing

Dogs dig up stuff as well, but is not a burrowing animal either.

Burrowing animal:
A “burrowing animal” is an animal (other than a worm, insect or the like) that makes a hole for habitation or shelter, such as a rabbit, mole, groundhog, gopher or salamander.

Note: A hole made by a non-burrowing animal, such as a dog, is not an abnormal ground condition unless marked or declared as ground under repair.

What is the historical basis to this rule? Was it ever envisaged amongst the makers of the rules that courses or golfers, especially those that aren’t in England or Scotland, might suffer greatly from the damage of other animals that don’t burrow? Was it just because some early golfer hit his ball down a rabbit hole that it was limited to “burrowing”?

Why is a ball in a rabbit scrape (or wombat scrape) allowed relief, but a ball in a hole dug by a wild pig rooting, or a kangaroo scratching, or an echidna digging for ants, not allowed relief? (How can you tell anyway … do we need to be experts in scat identification?)

This has always grated on me as being a totally trivial distinction.

Had the Rules originated in your part of the world, I’m sure the Rule could have been different :-)

Publish, you can always adopt a Local Rule allowing relief from damage caused by non-burrowing animals, or from a dangerous situation, like the proximity of alligators.

We once made a Local Rule when a family of swans terrorized the players if they came too close to their nest and signets.

Is this not splitting hairs ( no pun intended) surely a large area of ground ripped up by pigs rooting around for food is as much an abnormal ground condition as a similar bot much smaller hole dug by a Lizard. I do not beleive that the makers of the rules intended for these rules to be read quite this seriously. This rule is designed to give relief from naturally occuring but unusual damage to the course caused by animals, surely this is the way it should be interpreted.

I do not beleive that the makers of the rules intended for these rules to be read quite this seriously.

Pom
You must have realised by now that the rules are intended to be read exactly as they are written. Otherwise everyone would be putting their own interpration on them.

However, there is a rule which overcomes the problem as has been mentioned above. The committee has authority to declare the area or problem as GUR.

Incidentally to those that don’t know, we in the British Isles do have animals that tear up the ground but don’t burrow. Squirrels to name but one.

Pom,

I don’t mind splitting hares, they are jolly tasty roasted or jugged ;-) !

I agree with you that it would be sensible if any obvious animal damage to the course were to give a player a free drop under R.25-1, rather than having to make temporary LR’s, because it is not always easy to establish whom the culprit was or if it is a burrowing animal. But the Rules are as they are.
When I did my referee exam at the R&A in St. Andrews, I was caught out by seagulls! In 1993 they were considered burrowing animals and I and practically everybody else taking the exam was caught with their proverbial pants down.
Happy Easter holidays!

Johanna

Before 2000 “burrowing animals” and “abnormal ground conditions” were not even mentioned in the definitions.
At least we don’t have to guess nowadays.

I was caught out by seagulls! In 1993 they were considered burrowing animals and I and practically everybody else taking the exam was caught with their proverbial pants down.

We have shearwaters (mutton birds) and fairy penguins … both birds that burrow. And a whole golfer could fall down a wombat burrow!

Before 2000 “burrowing animals” and “abnormal ground conditions” were not even mentioned in the definitions.
At least we don’t have to guess nowadays.

But they were mentioned in the beginning of 25-1a before that. As far as I can see the burrowing animal bit was introduced (through Rule 32) in 1956.

I can’t see why the definition/rule couldn’t be written as “a hole, cast or runway made by an animal, a reptile or a bird …”. The burrowing seems totally arbitrary.

I can,t imagine classing a seagull as a burrowing animal so would have got me too. My problem with this rule is , like publish I think the rule has been made to suit english conditions & maybe for the U.S.A. at alater date but not changed to suit other locations. I realise that the GUR. local rule can be put inplace but if your match comittee is not doing there job as well as they should ( & this is quite common in some of the smaller clubs)players are being penalised because of a definition. Our r.os did not pick up this damaged area & it was about 10 m square.We used to have a local rule covering animal scrapes but that is no longer in place so we the players are the ones that are penalised.
whoops publish, beat me in. I agree totally with what you say

What about roo poo on the greens? I was reading another thread about movable objects and how if they’re not easy to move, they’re not movable objects. Let’s say your ball is on the green, behind or touching a turd that isn’t solid enought to be moved easily (it was probably rain soaked)... I moved my ball, but then that was only a casual game.