OT is Wyndham Clark correct?

[Ed Brzezowski]

Have the rules gotten too cumbersome? Is  400 page book really needed?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Have the rules gotten too cumbersome? Is  400 page book really needed?

Yes he is correct.


I liken it to a start-up that is freewheeling and innovative; but as time goes on they add more and more processes and procedures to cover every eventuality before they become a static behemoth, unable to be dynamic and a long way from the fun and young company they once were.


That’s the rules of golf.

[Kalen Braley]

Have the rules gotten too cumbersome? Is  400 page book really needed?

Yes and no I guess.

Yes, in that they are very complex, but no when you think about the massive size of the playing field with its various obstacles and near countless types of situations/scenarios that a player can find themselves in.

The irony with him specifically is now more than ever the field needs to be protected from players like him, (especially with so much $$$$ on the line) who deliberately flaunt rules like not improving his lie...

P.S. With as much money that is flying around now, I just don't buy the argument that groups can't be actively monitored, instead of just passively.  And heaven forbid, you do your math wrong in the scorers tent, you get DQ'd....

[BHoover]

The rules overall may be complicated, but one thing that is not complicated is the principle that one is not permitted to improve one’s lie. In other words, it does not take a law degree to know that mashing down the rough is not within the spirit of the rules.

[Tom_Doak]

And heaven forbid, you do your math wrong in the scorers tent, you get DQ'd....

I do agree that the Rules have gotten too complicated, though that's inevitably what happens when something goes from a game to a business.


But for the record, you're not responsible for your math on a scorecard.  You're responsible for putting down the correct score for each hole.  The total is entirely a matter of mathematics.

[Charlie Goerges]

He may be right, but I don't think he (and people like him) would like a simplified set of rules. Simplified rules will be less open and accommodating, not more.

[jeffwarne]

Have the rules gotten too cumbersome? Is  400 page book really needed?

Yet somehow PGA professionals many USGA amateur volunteers manage to take a course and familiarize themselves enough to be competent.
Why would a Tour player not do the same?


He certainly could use a primer.


I'm always amazed that people comment that "big money" is a reason for players to be LESS responsible for the rules.
Example: scorecard errors happen frequently by your official(player)marker, they also happen very frequently by volunteers doing unofficial scoring(which doesn't matter).


Let's say a player IN ROUND ONE chips out and makes a 5 on a par 5 and his playing partner(marker) writes down a 4, and quietly shoots a 71 that is now 70, 6 off the lead.
If he is no longer responsible to correct that, OR the penalty for signing for that lower number is NOT DQ but maybe a one or two shot penalty, wouldn't the temptation level go up in an event where a shot could be hundreds of thousands or even millions?


The rules (for those who took the time to learn the definitions and where to find the applicable rule-now you can simply google it!) are fine, but frankly they were more fine before the most recent attempt to simplify.


The confusion ALWAYS come when they try to simplify something that is not simple.
The divot police are a perfect example, and are such a far straetch from the original rule-"Play the ball as it lies"  which is almost always where the PGA Tour grants ridiculous license.

[jeffwarne]

Have the rules gotten too cumbersome? Is  400 page book really needed?

  And heaven forbid, you do your math wrong in the scorers tent, you get DQ'd....

As Tom said, player is not responsible for his math.
It is a simple process, repeated hundreds of thousands of times every year by players.
You mark for a player-when the round is over he reads off your scores(usually 3 at a time) and you either agree, or disagree/reconcile and the error is corrected.
Errors by markers are frequent-and easily fixed by the player before signing then card.
I laugh every time someone says an (unofficial volunteer) "scorer can do it"-they make mistakes all the time!
There are VERY FEW scorecard errors AFTER signing-it almost never happens at the pro level.


Golf will NOT be in a better place if players are not responsible for their scores and scorecard.

[Mike Wagner]

.

[Mike Worth]

The rules overall may be complicated, but one thing that is not complicated is the principle that one is not permitted to improve one’s lie. In other words, it does not take a law degree to know that mashing down the rough is not within the spirit of the rules.

I agree, and I will add that his response to the question whether his ball moved or oscillated in the rough at the Arnold Palmer was entirely unsatisfactory.


His defense was essentially I didn’t mean to do it and that’s if the ball actually even moved. 


Of course whether he meant to do it or not is not in the rulebook - intent is not in the rule.


It’s a good example of a touring pro answering his own made-up question (a.k.a. a strawman).

[Pete_Pittock]

The rules book is about 250 pages.  Before 2019, when it was the decisions book, it was about 450 pages. So no.

[Tim Martin]

The issue for Clark was the same at both Bay Hill and the Players. The easy fix going forward at least in the near term is to hover the club instead of sole it like you would with a bunker shot in similar situations. Just the suggestion that he sidestepped the rules should be a wake up call.

[Pete_Pittock]

Just because the rules say you may do something, doesn't mean you have to. Wyndham needs to talk to Jack, who hovered his club over the ball (lie) so he could never cause the ball to move. Easy peasy.

[Mike Wagner]

Have the rules gotten too cumbersome? Is  400 page book really needed?

Yes and no I guess.



The irony with him specifically is now more than ever the field needs to be protected from players like him, (especially with so much $$$$ on the line) who deliberately flaunt rules like not improving his lie...

You've crossed the line.

[Bill Shamleffer]

No the Rules are not too complicated.  I figured them out as a caddie when in junior high.

What are the most common rules issues we see with Pros on TV:
Improper drops (correct point or correct relief area);
Ball movement in rough;
Improving lie (Conditions affecting the stroke - temping down grass behind the ball in the rough).

We are allowed penalty or free relief from:
Penalty areas,
Unplayable lies,
or Abnormal conditions (paths, sprinkler heads, drains, etc).

     The pros have been FANTASTIC on figuring out how to manage to get Relief for Temporary Immovable Obstructions, and for finding best spot in Relief area (1 or 2 clubs from point of reference), so that often the end result is being able to Place the ball after 2 drops.
     No excuse for not also having a basic understanding of the options for the different types of Relief I noted above and the procedures (or having their caddie become students of the Rules).

     Next, when I learned the game in the late 70s -
Once the player Addressed the ball, any ball movement was the fault of the player;
Or any actions taken with any Loose Impediments within 2 club-lengths, any ball movement was the fault of the player.
     Thus the players were VERY careful with balls in the rough or in spots where ball movement was possible.  Perhaps we need to return to that OBJECTIVE based rule for what we now call CATS (conditions affecting the stroke).
     I would guess the players prefer today's rule that is subjective and assumes the player did not cause the ball to move unless it is known or virtually certain the player caused the movement.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No.

First, the rules book is not 400 pages long.

Second, look at the official rules for the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc. and you'll find they're quite long too (and printed on larger "pages" in their PDFs). And those have uniform playing surfaces, unlike golf.

Third, the rules cover a broad scope of things about as efficiently as possible. A shorter set of rules would be less forgiving, with fewer exceptions to things. For example, "you may not lift your ball without penalty" is a very short rule… but what about all the times you're allowed to lift your ball now for "good" purposes?

[Craig Sweet]

People should lay off Clark!  Are you telling me other pro's don't bend the rule and improve their lie? Clark just happened to have a camera person take an up close, slo mo shot of him doing it. 

[jeffwarne]

People should lay off Clark!  Are you telling me other pro's don't bend the rule and improve their lie? Clark just happened to have a camera person take an up close, slo mo shot of him doing it.

I'm telling you he should get used to cameras watching.
He's pretty darn good so the world will be watching.
I really don't remember this being very common and I've watched 50 years of televised golf.
Watson called out Player, the world called out Reed.
Not many other instances.
It wasn't that his ball moved--that was hard to see with the naked eye from above no less.
But he certainly soled his club more than "lightly" or "the weight" of the club.
That's risky as far as the ball moving, and could also be risky in terms of improving how it lies.

Nonetheless, he and other serious players would do well to learn the rules, rather than bemoaning they are too complicated.
It doesn't take that long.

[Steve Wilson]

Didn't Langer tell at least one player he wouldn't sign his scorecard if he continued to ground his club behind the ball in the roug?  And didn't he imply it was a common practice, but not one that he was going to ignore?

[Mike Wagner]

Have the rules gotten too cumbersome? Is  400 page book really needed?

Yes and no I guess.



The irony with him specifically is now more than ever the field needs to be protected from players like him, (especially with so much $$$$ on the line) who deliberately flaunt rules like not improving his lie...

You've crossed the line.

Kalen - you've crossed the line, period.

[Matt_Cohn]

The rules could be much shorter and cover 98% of situations perfectly. But that’s not good enough; they need to cover 100% of situations. And that last 2% gets crazy.

[John Kirk]

There was a major overhaul of the rules a few years ago which eliminated those that were no longer deemed relevant, but in theory the rules (regulations) should always become more complicated.  The number of rules infractions correlates with the number of methods players invent to gain an advantage that are ultimately determined to be unfair.  You can't undo those learned methods.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There was a major overhaul of the rules a few years ago which eliminated those that were no longer deemed relevant, but in theory the rules (regulations) should always become more complicated.  The number of rules infractions correlates with the number of methods players invent to gain an advantage that are ultimately determined to be unfair.  You can't undo those learned methods.

But the pro’s also use the rules to gain an unfair advantage. You may as well get rid of a lot of them and just call it the rub of the green.


A lot of these things should just be the spirit of the game:


Someone places their club behind a ball in the rough and it oscillates a little - nothing to see here move on… Someone spends two minutes mowing the grass behind their ball to improve the lie - well that’s a bit much. I don’t like that fella. He doesn’t play in the spirit of the game. Move on….


Way too much clutter in all aspects of golf.

[Sean_A]

Because people can and learn nearly all the rules doesn’t mean there aren’t too many, overcomplicated and at times difficult to understand.

What we essentially have now is the vast majority of golfers play to what they believe are the rules. I would venture to guess that a significant percentage of golfers haven’t read a rule book in over five years. That said, Jeff is right. Pros should take the time to get a good grip of the rules and request their caddies to do the same.

Ciao

[Jeff Evagues]

Why didn't they let Malnati drop right next to the hole yesterday? I know what the rule is but I'm sure he could have taken a stance avoiding the sprinkler.