Simplifying the playing rules

[Jon Wiggett]

What I am asking is not about changes to the rules but if the rules really need to be made more complicated and expanded on at the rate that it is.

Jon, I don't see how you think that the rules are getting more complicated.  Can you give me some examples?

By removing the exemption for playing a wrong ball from a hazard, it simplified things.  Changing penalties doesn't complicate things, unless one has a problem understanding penalties that are adjustments to a match (non-conforming club).  There is definitely a larger definition of when a ball is lost.  There was some change to 13-4's Exceptions that actually simplified things from a ruling point of view.  I guess adding in a local rule for electronic measuring devices makes it more complicated.

John,

check the rules of golf from say thirty years ago and compare them with todays. Either there is more rule book now or I am just suffering from old age

Jon

[JohnV]

Jon,

Since I own a few old rule books, I'll do a little comparison when I get home tonight.

[JohnV]

Ok,  I'm a day late.  That old book is hard to read.

I got out a 1971 rule book and took a look.

The rules were way more disorganized back then.  There were 41 rules in those days.  They have been reorganized and ordered to the 34 we have today.

The biggest change I can say I saw was that there was no concept of a Substituted Ball back then.  No real difference in Match Play, but pretty big in Stroke play.

If you accidentally switched balls while yours was lifted, you had to correct it before teeing off on the next hole.  If not you were DQ'ed same as a Wrong Ball.  If you didn't have the old ball, you were out of luck.  This was changed around 1980 when an LPGA player tossed her ball to her caddie who missed it and it went into a hazard where it couldn't be recovered.  She was DQ'ed.  Now she would get two strokes for substituting when not allowed.

Lots of other rules have had penalties changed.  For example, teeing off outside the teeing ground is now 2 strokes and must be corrected.  In those days there was no penalty, but you had to correct it and all the strokes played counted.

If you lost your ball in ground under repair you got relief similar to today, but if you lost your ball in an obstruction you were out of luck.

There was no definition of Line of Putt although the term was used and the definition of Lost Ball was simpler, but the definitions were pretty similar otherwise.

In general, I'd say the rules were slightly less complicated than today, but had some gaping holes in them and were much more disorganized.

[Jon Wiggett]

John,

thanks for the excellent reply. That the matchplay rules are almost unchanged is not so suprising. The strokeplay rules have been made clearer you say, which can only be a good thing and I suppose clearer and longer definitions are unavoidably linked.

John, how do you think they could be made simpler (leave fairness out of it please)?

[JohnV]

Jon,

Some totally random ideas.

Remove dropping.  Just place everything within one club length of a point or along a line (ie 26-1b).  No question of redrops or if it was a good or a bad drop.  Eliminate the difference between 1 club length and 2 club lengths so people don't get confused.  If 1 club length isn't enough to get away from a lateral water hazard, it should have been marked better.  If it won't get you away from an unplayable, you do have 2 other options.

For that matter, get rid of the club length and make it 1 meter.  We can all get a club with 1 meter marked on the club (ok, I'll go along with 1 yard if you insist, but those 3 inches might make a difference.)

Make regression possible under unplayable ball rule.  That was considered for this time but dropped as there were some unanswered questions.  Hopefully they will get it all figured out by 2012.

Make the one ball rule a rule instead of a local rule, but allow players to substitute whenever they are allowed lift a ball and clean it (in other words any time other than under 5-3, 12-2 or 22).  Who cares if a guy has a putting ball as long as it is the same type as the original?  This removes almost all the penalties for substituting a ball and the distinction between A ball and THE ball.

Get the R&A to agree with embedded ball through the green and <5 minutes late to the tee being 2 strokes.  No reason they should be local rules.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Some totally random ideas.

Remove dropping.  Just place everything within one club length of a point or along a line (ie 26-1b).  No question of redrops or if it was a good or a bad drop.  Eliminate the difference between 1 club length and 2 club lengths so people don't get confused.  If 1 club length isn't enough to get away from a lateral water hazard, it should have been marked better.  If it won't get you away from an unplayable, you do have 2 other options.

For that matter, get rid of the club length and make it 1 meter.  We can all get a club with 1 meter marked on the club (ok, I'll go along with 1 yard if you insist, but those 3 inches might make a difference.)

Make regression possible under unplayable ball rule.  That was considered for this time but dropped as there were some unanswered questions.  Hopefully they will get it all figured out by 2012.

Make the one ball rule a rule instead of a local rule, but allow players to substitute whenever they are allowed lift a ball and clean it (in other words any time other than under 5-3, 12-2 or 22).  Who cares if a guy has a putting ball as long as it is the same type as the original?  This removes almost all the penalties for substituting a ball and the distinction between A ball and THE ball.

Get the R&A to agree with embedded ball through the green and <5 minutes late to the tee being 2 strokes.  No reason they should be local rules.

Good point John,

excuse my ignorance but what do you mean by regression

[JohnV]

Jon,

There was discussion about letting a player who declares his ball unplayable be able to go back to any point where he had previously played from on that hole instead of just to where the previous stroke was made from.

Imagine you hit your tee shot into a bad place, but decide to play it.  You swing and whiff it.

Under the current unplayable rule your choices with one penalty stroke are:

a) play from where you last made a stroke - that is right here because you just whiffed
b) drop within two club lengths of where the ball lies (might not be any good spots or it might even roll back to where it is right now)
c) keep the point where the ball lies between you and the hole and go back as far as you like.  If you were up against an OB fence, there might not be a point in bounds or if it was solid bushes there might not be a place to drop.

You are pretty well stuck right here until you can hit it or get a lie from which you can hit it.

Under regression, a) becomes: Put a ball into play from any point you've previously played a shot which in this case would be the tee or where you just whiffed it, your choice.

Supposedly it was in the changes for 2008 until near the end of the process when there were concerns of some sort raised and they tabled it for now.  It was even mentioned in at least one article about the 2008 changes, but was dropped by late September.

[Pete_Pittock]

John VDB,
  Another situation ala Chris Cupit. You drive ends up with a lie on an island in the Church Pew bunkers. You can rake your way in, but you can't rake your way out if the ball ends up in the bunker proper or another bunker.
  I saw it happen at Langdon and asked the WPGA at Oakmont.

[JohnV]

Peter,

that is correct.  If you rake a bunker when you ball is in that one or another one and you haven't played a shot you are in trouble.  The church pews are a very good example of where a player could get in trouble.  Or any bunker where the superintendent leaves the rakes in the bunker