Do you believe (quote by Joe Leenheer)

[Kyle Harris]

MW-P,

If you'll read my unedited reply to you earlier, I hope you'll realize that I am in no way judging your values. However, you clearly value certain things outside of the rules more than rules. This is the only level to which I say your hypothetical speaks to your values.

I find no dishonor in what you are doing as you do not intend to mislead with your actions.

[Joe Leenheer]

Cheating is not in the sport, it's in the people.   

There was a recent rant on people who whine about politicians (Me guilty), and what a waste of time, ranting about it is,

Because

Politicians are people that reflect the type of people we are. Ergo, if politicians suck, we as people suck.

Protecting the field is missing from more than just golf.

There was never a time in history where we knew that the "intent" of a politician was to benefit the people while not helping himself.

How did "intent" ever get in the rules of golf?  Our parents loved us more than anyone else ever will in our lives and even they didn't buy.."I didn't mean to."

Intent and context aren't in the rules of golf, though.

RULE 1-2. Exerting Influence On Movement Of Ball Or Altering Physical Conditions
A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

I'm pretty sure "intent" pops up a couple more times but at least I didn't have to look very deep to call you out on this one.

Oh....and "context" is in there a bit too. 

[Phil McDade]

I can vividly remember learning the game.  I played mostly by myself, didn't know the rules and was oblivious to the game's history.  Nobody's going go convince me that I wasn't really playing golf.  It was pretty pure in my book.  

At its essence the game is about a ball, a stick, a field and a hole in the ground.  As long as you don't touch the ball until  you retrieve it from the hole, it's golf.  

FWIW.

Bogey

Bogey:

I'm probably stepping off a big cliff here (re. OT threads on current politics... ), but....

Are there Biblical parallels here? I believe there are.

I tend to side with your view on the game, as I learned it pretty much the same way.

[Kyle Harris]

Cheating is not in the sport, it's in the people.   

There was a recent rant on people who whine about politicians (Me guilty), and what a waste of time, ranting about it is,

Because

Politicians are people that reflect the type of people we are. Ergo, if politicians suck, we as people suck.

Protecting the field is missing from more than just golf.

There was never a time in history where we knew that the "intent" of a politician was to benefit the people while not helping himself.

How did "intent" ever get in the rules of golf?  Our parents loved us more than anyone else ever will in our lives and even they didn't buy.."I didn't mean to."

Intent and context aren't in the rules of golf, though.

RULE 1-2. Exerting Influence On Movement Of Ball Or Altering Physical Conditions
A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

I'm pretty sure "intent" pops up a couple more times but at least I didn't have to look very deep to call you out on this one.

Oh....and "context" is in there a bit too. 

I think you're being a bit obtuse, warden.

Context in the sense that whatever circumstances the player finds himself in does not dictate a change in ruling (like signing an incorrect scorecard despite overwhelming evidence that would allow the player to correct the score after the fact). When a player violates a procedural rule, the context of the situation does not matter in applying that rule.

Intent is also in the sense the regardless of the players intent in an action, a violation of that rule has a consequence. In the above scorecard situation, regardless of whether or not the player intended to sign an incorrect scorecard, doing so results in a DQ.

This is outlined rather clearly in the Richard Tufts book; "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf," and is a worthwhile read for anyone really interested in the subject. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

We still have lots of great examples of sportsmanship in golf, like the guy who DQ'ed himself from Q school a few weeks back.

As to Nicklaus, while I agree he would never cheat, years ago at CP during the Crosby, they were playing lift and clean, and he spent a good five minutes getting the best possible lie out of his placement on 17 FW.  I recall being embarrassed, but also educated to know these guys take full advantage of the rules, and take them to the limit for their own benefit, while not exceeding them.

There were examples, like Arnie smashing his club in the sand at the Masters, up to Tiger allowing the crowd to move a boulder in a waste area for his shot, of a tinge of "stars getting the beneifts of the rules decisions." then and now.

There are always examples (more and more) of TV viewers catching infractions, like Watson getting a 2 stroke penalty years ago, but still winning by 3, etc.

All is well in golf, in my humble opinion.  The rules infractions seem to be random and enforced.  If anything, TV makes them even more honest.  What doesn't get caught on tape these days?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

We have somewhat drifted a little from the topic, and certainly varied views about what the game means to each of us is evident.
To some...myself included...the game is not all it could be without the likes of great golf courses.
Without the foresight and brilliance os Ross, Mackenzie,Colt,Doak, Crenshaw to name but a few, this game would not be the same for me.
Playing on golf courses that my fortunate snobbery would deem less than good, does not make me enjoy the game as much as playing on good venues.
I accept that I have been very very lucky to be able to experience many great courses and have become clearly spolied along the way, my golfing world concept has changed accordingly to the extent that the surroundings often dictate my thorough enjoyment.
I pick my tournament schedule along the lines of venues, knowing that on those occasions where the rules of the game are paramount, my surroundings make that experience memorable and fulfilled.
The amount of work, effort and mental turmoil that I put into my game in order to play at that level also menas that when not competing, the rules are not as paramount and the joy of just being ...out there....is what keeps me coming back, the joy of just hitting shots, whatever shots I may choose on that non competing day..

[John Kavanaugh]

We still have lots of great examples of sportsmanship in golf, like the guy who DQ'ed himself from Q school a few weeks back.

There is a huge difference between damage control and sportsmanship.  This kid came out after sleeping on his secret for something like six days.  Far to many people knew what happened for it to stay under wraps.  He saved his career by not denying those 6 other guys their deserved shot at second stage.  He got lucky.

[Bill McKinley]

A couple things...

1. To answer the original question, I believe that most players that play the game for a living, remember that, for a living, will "bend" the rules or try and get the rules to help them out on the almighty scorecard.  I also know for a fact that Jack Nicklaus would do everything in his power to get young rules officials to rule in his favor.  It happened during the 1996 Sr US Open at Canterbury. Many of my members will tell the story.

But, I'm not throwing stones at Jack, I'm just pointing out that when a guy's living depends on what number he puts up on the scoreboard, he's going to try every avenue within the rules to help out his score.  If others look down on guys for doing that, that's their right but they need to try to put themselves in the tour player's shoes.  One stroke per round can mean lots of $$$$.

Bobby Jones' line about golf and tournament golf being two different things rings very true in this example.

2.  Kyle, you take a very high brow line when it comes to the rules saying that you aren't playing golf if you break a rule, then say that intent and context aren't in the rules.  All Joe did was point out that they ARE in the rules.  How is Joe being the "obtuse" one here?

Great topic BTW!

[Jim_Kennedy]

JK
You said:

The money on the pro tour has eliminated the call penalties on yourself. Please, name a current instance where there were no cameras to report the infraction.

I don't think I got any kind of response from you regarding my post showing at least three examples of players calling rules infractions on themselves, away from the cameras.

You also said you were "...trying to lift the curtain on golf being a game of honor because we police ourselves."

Well, it's been lifted for you and honor has been found behind it. Why not just fess up and admit that your premise is incorrect?

[John Kavanaugh]

Jim,

There are to many factors involved to judge any one incident.  Anytime you ask your caddie if you hit the ball twice, or if it crossed the hazard you know the answer before you ask.  I also have a very difficult time believing people who suddenly get a revelation back home when they are having trouble sleeping.  The New Jersey poet Bob Gotti sums my feelings pretty well in the following:

The honor that mere men bestow, is motivated by a political undertow,
A hidden agenda that won’t prevail, as Eternal Truths these men assail.

Where I think my point best is made is in the rules themselves.  Why is it that when men who embrace that they are cheaters get together and play they reduce the number of rules instead of creating more?  The thickness of the rule book is inversely proportional to the trust you have in your opponent.

[John Kavanaugh]

I wouldn't have a problem if any of my children were asked to sign a prenuptial agreement unless it was as thick as the rules of golf. 

[Kyle Harris]

Bill:

Quite simply because Joe seems to have just looked for the word intent in the rules without actually analyzing the purpose the rule. If we accept that the rules as we know them today derive from a much simpler set of rules and that the amount of different rules are simply there to clarify potentially odd situations I feel I can logically eliminate "intent" from his cited rule.

I believe the following rules cover 99% of golf rules:

1. Play the course as you find it.
2. Do not touch the ball until it is holed
3. If you must touch the ball before it is holed, add an extra shot to your score.

The rules Joe cited clearly falls under the first category: play the course as you find it. However, for some this can be a vague rule because the very act of golfing will alter the course "as you find it." Think of walking through some tall grass, the potential exists for a golfer to inadvertently alter the playing conditions of the golf course for his subsequent shot. The rule Joe cited simply acknowledges that cases may exist where this happens by accident. I do believe that the golfer is subsequently required to recreate the conditions as best they can, thus negating intent from the whole equation. There is also the instance of "path of intended swing" in terms of modifying course conditions or taking a drop from an immovable obstruction, and again, these are simple clarifications of the first simple rule of playing the course as one finds it. In the instance of breaking a twig along the path of intended swing, regardless of the intent of the golfer, the golf course has been irrevocably altered and the golfer must incur a two shot penalty or loss of hole.

The great irony here is that golf as a gentleman's game would not need such a rule as the golfer in this case would acknowledge the changed playing conditions and recreate the original challenge anyway. So Joe is also citing an instance where a rule exists to prevent the need for self-policing by clarifying the original point.

As for the idea that one is not playing golf if they are taking liberties with the rules (rolling the ball out of divot, etc.) I am definitely going to stick to that one. At what point do such modifications become innocent and acceptable and not? If one is going to arbitrarily determine under what circumstances hard luck is and is not acceptable (and still call it golf!) why go to trouble of actually playing a golf course?

[Bill McKinley]

Kyle,

I have to disagree that those 3 examples cover 99% of the rules and please don't right a book on trying to get me to change my mind.  The golfers intent is all over the decisions book on the rules of golf.  The rules official has to consider intent a lot when making rulings.  And it's funny how many times "odd situations" come up when participating in or officiating a tournament.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I have to disagree that those 3 examples cover 99% of the rules and please don't right a book on trying to get me to change my mind.  The golfers intent is all over the decisions book on the rules of golf.  The rules official has to consider intent a lot when making rulings.  And it's funny how many times "odd situations" come up when participating in or officiating a tournament.

...which sounds like an awful lot of policing for an honorable gentleman's game...

The sportsman would understand the soul of golf and have little need for context, intent, or decisions. I can follow every USGA rule with my 3 simplified rules. I may place myself at a disadvantage to the field, but so be it, I fin golfing my way out of awkward situations to be far more enjoyable than legislating my way out.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,

There are to many factors involved to judge any one incident.  Anytime you ask your caddie if you hit the ball twice, or if it crossed the hazard you know the answer before you ask.  I also have a very difficult time believing people who suddenly get a revelation back home when they are having trouble sleeping.  The New Jersey poet Bob Gotti sums my feelings pretty well in the following:

The honor that mere men bestow, is motivated by a political undertow,
A hidden agenda that won’t prevail, as Eternal Truths these men assail.

Where I think my point best is made is in the rules themselves.  Why is it that when men who embrace that they are cheaters get together and play they reduce the number of rules instead of creating more?  The thickness of the rule book is inversely proportional to the trust you have in your opponent.

John,
The thickness of the rule book has nothing to do with cheaters. It's thickness has more to do with addressing the vast number of decisions that are needed to address the increasing problem of how to equitably apply them to a game that has shape shifted itself as it moved across different environments. That, and the fact that lawyers also play. 

As for the couple of lines from the longer poem, I can only say I have never had to wait for eternal truths to prevail. Karma follows me around like Pigpen's cloud of dust.