Technology vs. Tradition

[Dan King]

If the USGA had to justify all the contradictions in the rules they'd have a heck of a lot of work on their hands.

I don't know if the USGA is necessarily opposed to a competition ball.  There could be any number of reasons a decision hasn't been written yet.  I'm gonna try and send them some email and see if we can get an official position from them.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"I don't know the traffic regulations of every city I get to either, but I manage to drive through without being arrested."
--Lloyd Mangrum (on being assessed many violations as a result of not knowing the rules)

[RobertWalker]

attn jackstack!!!
I am waiting for your answer to my question!
(stack)
"robert walker do you have any idea what your talking about i would like to know where you get your ideas because if they are the same as the usgas the game is in trouble"
(walker)
I think I know what I am talking about. What have I said that indicates otherwise?

[RobertWalker]

attn Dan King:
Can you name 7 contradictions in the rules in the rules of golf?

[RobertWalker]

attention:
Dan King, and Jack Stack!
Do you have responses to the above?

[Del]

Robert,

You might know Dan King; and I am no Dan King; but I can think of a couple of contradictions right off the top of my head.  The most obvious is the USGA's stance on allowing "Winter Rules".  

Appendix I,Part B, 3.b spends a paragraph basically explaining that "preferred lies" and "winter rules" shouldn't be used.  It then goes on to say that adverse conditions sometimes prompt committees to make a local rule dealing with "winter rules".  It THEN says that if this happens, the committee should detail (and interpret) a Local Rule.  The section closes by offering an appropriate local rule covering these situations, but states the USGA will not "interpret" it.

Now, you can count that as one BIG contradiction, or if you are picky, there are actually a couple in there.

Oh, one other... and I guess you could argue that this isn't a contradiction, but I consider it an oddity.  You can "double-clutch" a ball in match play... in other words, hit the ball twice in the course of a stroke, and not lose the hole. (The stroke counts, as well as a penalty stroke). [Rule 14-4)  BUT, if the player hits the ball, and it bounces of something else (pipeline,tree, stick, any object) and comes back and hits the clubface, the player loses the hole outright in match play. (Rule 19-2a...see decision 14-4/2).  Somehow, to me, it seems a more egregious error (how's THAT for using big words... now if Tommy will just correct my SPELLING) to strike the ball twice than to have it bounce back and hit the club by accident.

OH! I just thought of another, and I've argued this one before on some discussion group somewhere.  It has to do with the Stadler decision on "building a stance".  When Craig Stadler placed a towel under his KNEES, he was penalized for altering the area of his intended STANCE.  However, the definitions clearly define "Stance" as "Placing his FEET in position for and preparatory to making a stroke."  It doesn't say anything about knees.  There has been a lot of argument that the towel "bridged" between his legs, giving him more stability, etc., but I would let a guy play off of his knees and use a towel all day long and not think he had an advantage over me standing on my feet.

Sorry, I just got going there, and as usual ran my mouth more than I intended.  

[ForkaB]

Good stuff, Del

How about the fact that you cannot use any sort of artificial range finder UNLESSS you happen to be riding in a cart equipped with GPS?

Or, how about the fact that the more that you follow the rules of etiquette (i.e. replace divots, cleanly rake bunkers, smooth down any spike marks you left on the green, etc.) the more you are disadvantaged relative to fellow-competitors who do not follow these rules?

Are we up to 7 yet?

[Dan King]

RobertWalker, I'm not ducking your question, I just didn't see it the first time.

I probably shouldn't have made such a statement without specifics in mind. I did recently go to the USGA/PGA rules seminar and thought of numerous inconsistencies.  I'd just have to go through all of the decisions to find them again. I'll work on that over the next few days.  

An obvious area of inconsistencies is between the Rules of Golf and Handicapping. Things such as allowing artificial devices, combining of match and medal play, and play of mulligans are all allowed in handicapping, but not in the Rules of Golf (which only confuses most golfers I know.)

One of the principles of golf is that you would never get to choose between two golf balls. There is one specific case where you are. I'll need to find the decision, but it doesn't fit in the spirit or the rules.

There is also a lot of rule making in the decisions. I always thought the Decisions just clarified the Rule book, but there are some decisions that seem to crafted out of thin air (I know you'll aks me to doucment that and by then I expect to be ready.)

Rich, the rules of golf do not allow artificial measuring devices regardless if they are on a cart or hand held. The Handicapping people do allow artificial measuring devices regardless if cart attached or hand held. The USGA recognizes they made a mistake here and will hopefully rectify, my concern is they might rectify it by allowing artificial measuring devices.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:The rules of golf are dumber than carrots. A long time ago a bunch of guys in coats and ties and funny accents drank a vat of brandy and made up these rules that only Ben Hogan could live by.
--Dan Jenkins

[RobertWalker]

To Del's comments,
Winter Rules is an area where the Rules of Golf are vague, and vague on purpose. While the concept of Winter Rules contradicts the concept of Play the Ball as it Lies, there are conditions that warrant them. You will notice that Winter Rules are addressed in the appendix. I would have to say that the Rules Book is uncomfortable with having to address the concept of Winter Rules at all.

Re: Double Clutch, and being struck by or striking a rebounded ball. These are 2 totally different conditions. Even I see that! The double clutch, would occur accidentally, it is safe to assume. However, a player could step into the path of his struck and rebounding ball to stop it. No Contradiction HERE.
Re: C Stadler and the towel.
The rules are very straight forward here. You cannot build a stance. Feet , Knees, whatever, you cannot build a stance. If you put a newspaper down, you are building a stance. Now the funny thing, is that I do not see anything that contradicts the rules here. Is it picky? Well of course! But contradictory? No way! If you disagree with that rule, then how would you re-write it?
Re Range Finders:
I have a problem with that one. How could the USGA be stupid enough to let those things into golf? That contradicts the spirit and the rules!
Re Rich's comment on etiquette.... HUH?
That is a wierd statement. How does following etiquette guidelines contradict ANY rule of golf....strange!
Re Dan Jenkins:
At times, Dan Jenkins may be on the verge of being semi-funny, but he ain't 1/4 right.
Dan King:
give me 1 example of rules writng in the decisions. I want to see it!

By the way guys... I'm still waiting to hear from Jack Stack!
Cheerios and Wheaties!

[ForkaB]

RW

I was trying to say that: (for example) the Rules state that a player "should fill up and smooth over all holes and footprints made by him" in a bunkers, and yet if that rule is breached by another player who precedes me into that bunker, and I land in his unsmoohted footprint, then I am the one who is effectively penalized, rather than him.  This may not technically be a contradiciton, but it is stupid.

[RobertWalker]

Rich,
Stupid is a very strong word. I also have to add that you are talking about etiquette, not the rules. These are things that we need to learn, but if, as you say this is stupid, what is your solution to the bad manners of other players?
C&W

[ForkaB]

Robert

"Stupid" is a word that I use when it is too early in the morning to think of another one.  Sorry.  My rules book reads, on the first page:

Rules of Golf

Section 1
ETIQUETTE

Courtesy on the Course

etc.

This is an example of a contradition, IMHO.  Etiquette is not a rule of "play" but it is a rule of "golf."  And, breaches of this rule can significantly affect "play."  Likewise, as Dan says, Handicapping is not part of the rules oof "play" and yet several of these rules of play reference "handicaps."

Vis a vis remedies for breach of etiquette, the only practical one would be to allow players to repair spike-marks or any other "damage to greens."  I've tried to argue this with the USGA before, and am tired of trying to force my inexorable logic on this matter into deaf ears.

[RobertWalker]

Rich,
Not raking or smoothing bunker sufaces, and the spike mark thing are matters of etiquette, and not rules issues. Incidentally, soft spikes and non metal cleats have made a huge impact on the smoothness of greens, and rakes for that matter have as well. It amazes me that Pine Valley and Merion to this day have no rakes in their bunkers (hazards).
I would say that matters of etequitte are just not legislatable, but we all must strive to leave an area as we found it, if not in better shape. Be selfless.
C&W

[ForkaB]

Robert

How can "Etiquette" be Section I of the "Rules of Golf" and not be a "rules" issue?

I am glad too that soft-spikes are reducing damage to the green, but it would also be very simple adn equitable to allow for the repair of pike marks, just as it is allowed for pitch marks and damage to the hole.

Selflessness and courtesy are the keys, of course, but golf courses in the real world are at least partially inhabited by selfish and discourteous golfers whose actions should no so much effect our enjoyment of hte game.

[RobertWalker]

Rich,
I am no rules expert, but there are clearly 34 rules of golf, some definitions (section II), Appendices, and Section-I called etiquette. How would you change the rules? Where would you accomodate issues of etequitte within those 34 rules? Allowing a player to smooth a foot print in a bunker would be a contradiction to the rules' position regarding winter rules.
The basic philosophy of the game is that you play the course as you find it.
C&W

[ForkaB]

C&W

Section III of The Rules of Golf is entitled, "The Rules of Play."  This is where the 34 number comes from.  It is only a subsection of the Rules, which also indcludes "Etiquette."  Smoothing a footprint in a bunker would not be feasible as if you're ball was in that footprint, you could not "smooth" without disturbing the ball.  Repairing a spike mark, or putter indentation, on the green is feasible, and is no different from a point of view of rules theory than fixing an unrepaired divot mark.  This is what I mean by a contradiction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The "Rules of Golf" as adjudicated by the USGA and the R&A, are neither stupid, nor contradictory.
The Rules have evolved over hundreds of years and seek to treat equitibly the millions of situations that golfers have encountered since the begining of the game.
If one understands the SPIRIT of the game, and the rules that govern it, one should have few, if any problems with those rules.
The rules tend to help, not hinder the player, whose opponent is the course and/or fellow competitor.

Robert Walker,

When the R&A went to the American ball, golf hadn't grown financially, to where it is today, and the legal climate was substantially different.

As I stated in an earlier post, a representative of a ball/equipment manufacturer argued that it would be unfair to single out the ball for standardization, and I found that his argument had merit.  But, the ball sure seems like a good place to start.

I do find it amusing that many of the bashers of Augusta and Hootie, are now looking to Augusta and Hootie to solve the distance problem that is ONLY RECENTLY BEING ACKNOWLEDGED.  But, perhaps the AUGUSTA golf ball, could be the beginning of the solution to the problem.  I like the idea.

I think some are viewing $ 200,000,000 as an enormous war chest that can handle any and all lawsuits.  $ 200,000,000 is not a lot of money when looking at your opposition and recent jury awards.  Didn't Ron Goldman's family win a $ 30,000,000 award from O.J. Simpson ?  I don't think going to battle is the correct strategy today.  And, if the PGA, USGA, and R&A got together, making a decision that impacts the manufacturers, is that not grounds for a suit

Geoff,

As a true Coca Cola lover, I believe Coke first started down the wrong path when they changed their sweetener to high fructose CORN syrup, in order to save money.  They can call it Coke Classic all they want, but it will never be the same unless they return to the original sweetener.

The other possibility would be for a grass roots movement, with the governing bodies providing the specs for a competition ball, and then, individuals like us, supporting the manufacture, sale and use of said ball for all forms of play.

[Dan King]

My Decision book is on my desk at work (Not even sure myself what it is doing there) and I don't want to rely on previous Decision Books to answer the questions about contradictions and decisions that are independent of rules.  You'll have to wait a day or two for those answers.

Etiquette is indeed part of the rules. Just because they lack penalties doesn't make them any lesser rules.  Are the penalties the only thing keeping you from breaking rules? Most of us wouldn't break rules even if we knew we wouldn't get caught.

Patrick I agree with much of what you say (except I believe there are some contradictions in the rules, more on that once my Decision book and I are reunited.) Your Hootie comment, just because we criticize the men of green doesn't mean we can't hope they will do something right in the future :-)

The $200 million defense fund shouldn't need to be used.  It is just a strong disencentive for manufacturers to try frivilous lawsuits.  But if the manufacturers feel thay have a legitimate case, the $200 million isn't going to scare them.  That's why I think the USGA would have trouble outlawing equipment they previously approved.

Amazing this thread has outlasted Quokka :-)

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"You mustn't blow your nose when your partner is addressing the ball. Otherwise the book of rules is mostly nonsense."
--Henry Longhurst, 1978

[Del]

Robert,

First of all, I want to say that I think the Rules of Golf are very good.  They are thorough, adequate, well-thought out, and cover a very complex array of issues in straight forward, easy to understand language.  The areas that have not been directly addressed in the rules are often covered in the decisions.

Having said that, you asked for contradictions, and I gave you one.  The section on "Winter Rules" says don't do it, but then tells you how to do it, but adds if you do it, even the way the rules say to do it, it won't be recognized by the USGA.  I don't see how that isn't a contradiction.  They should either allow the use of Winter Rules, or disallow it.  Being "vague" is one thing you can't have in the rules.

I admitted in my post that the instance of "double clutching" isn't a contradiction, but I do feel there is a penalty discrepancy.  I have seen players purposely double-clutch numerous times in my life.  I have yet to see someone hit a ball, bounce it off of something, and hit it again with the clubface on purpose.  Maybe Paul Hahn can work on that one.

As to the Stadler ruling (the ruling was actually based on a decision that had been published right before Stadler used the towel in 1987), I don't thing the rule should be re-written.  Rule 13-3 states "A player is entitled to place his FEET firmly in taking his stance, but he shall not build a stance".  The rules are very specific with words; "The ball" is different from "a ball".  I feel the interpretation of the rule, and the interpretation of the definition of "stance" were in error.  There are others that know a whole lot more about the rules than I do that did not agree with the decision when it was published.  

Like I said before, I think the rules do a superb job of regulating play.  They are not infallible, though, and should not be viewed as a perfect, immutable work.  If and when need arises they can (and should) be amended or interpreted.  

[RobertWalker]

If Stadler did not assume a stance, then what did he do? What a great ruling......still wrong after all these years?

[RobertWalker]

Would it have been ok to put a sheet of plywood down? Corrugated Cardboard?

[George Pazin]

At the risk of being crucified, can I ask what the logic is behind not allowing spike marks to be fixed? And why can't you use artificial aids to determine distance, while many courses(I know, GCGC isn't:-)) are littered with yardage markers?

Just for the record, I don't use said artifical aids - in fact, I'm one of the few people I know who frequently doubts listed yardages on courses & instead use my gut instinct more often than not. Which could explain why I generally shoot in the mid 90s.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

Under the guise of fixing spike marks, one could make a nice indentation from their ball to the hole with their putter, especially if the greens are a little moist.

Since spike marks are all but extinct, this shouldn't be a problem any more.

With all the yardage books, sprinkler cap yardage markers, red, white and blue 100, 150, and 200 markers in the fairway, the case against range finders is weakening.

I'm not so sure all of these reference points haven't slowed up the game, with golfers searching for them, then pacing between their ball and the located marker.

Some courses, Pine Valley I believe, have not placed yardages on the sprinkler caps, but the caddies seem to know the yardage from each cap.

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

I always assumed that was the reason, but couldn't a golfer pretty much do the same thing while pretending to fix a ball mark?

I agree that most golfers are slow with yardages - as well as pretty much everything else. Why are caddies allowed to get involved at all with anything? When did golf become a team sport? I can kind of see it in actual team competition - four balls, foursomes, etc. - but I've always thought that caddies do too much for most pros. The whole "checking alignment" thing, especially on putting, seems pretty weak to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

In the old days, when spikes were worn, the closer to the hole the greater the number of spike marks one could find and fix.  It would be a stretch to fix 18 ball marks that just happen to be on the same line as one's putt.

With the amount of money at stake on the pro tour, the division of labor finds a place to thrive.  When caddies have a direct financial relationship with the earnings of the player, they are part of the team, golfwise and financially.  That's just the way it is.  I was glad to see that the caddy must step away from behind the player before the putting stroke is taken, but I would like to see a prohibition on assisting the player with lining up as well.

[ForkaB]

George

You are right and Patrick and the USGA are wrong, IMHO.  It is simple mathematics to know that the FARTHER away you are from the hole, the more spike marks are likely to be found in your line.  There is no way that range finders can be bad but GPS and sprinkler yardages can be good.

I too, agree that caddies are a conradiction (even though they are a great instituion, to which I once did and still do belong), and have argued for their elimination in major champitonsuiops in the thread I started regarding "gowf" vs. "golf".