[johnk]

I've come to realize that most of the posts about Tour rules interpretations such as the recent Wie related ones are REALLY about something else.

The predominant posters on these rules threads fall into two main categories:

#1 The Repressed Nostalgists) who can't stand the way pro golfers squeeze every ounce of advantage from the rules; nor how the rules officials are enablers in this inimical to the 'true spirit of the game' foolishness.  Thus, they bring these topics to the fore in a manner that attempts to avoid hypocrisy since most don't have the courage or willpower to stop watching pro golf altogether.

#2 The Rules Poindexters) who are rules experts that interpret the infraction and the issues literally instead of emotionally.  They may be aware that the nostalgists are actually protesting the moral right of the pros to milk the rules, but the rules poindexters don't care because they like the chance to exercise the compulsive part of their brain that spent many hours reading the worn copy of "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" that they keep by the toilet.

When you put those two types together, you can see how easy it is for the classic rules thread to propagate and multiply.

[THuckaby2]

Good call, well said.

I just don't fall into either category myself - I really don't give too much of a darn about the rules of what anyone does with them.

My participation in recent threads was wholly limited to my role as a "jump in and point out Goodale wrong because he damn near never is and it's so damn fun to catch him" ist.

 

[johnk]

People with over 10K posts on GCA have their own SPECIAL category...

[PThomas]

Golf Digest ran a piece after the Watson-Player Skin Game incident - man, that was more than 20 yrs ago! - along these lines, Watson being the strict one - he may have been drawn Moses-like with tablets - and Player the other sort...

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

That's one of the most extraordinary initial posts I've ever seen on this website. Would you care to elaborate?

(I hope so)

[johnk]

TEP,

I just found it amusing to read the rules posts with the backdrop that the posters who get worked about a a questionable drop are angry that the pros will slow down play, wait for an official and perhaps escalate the question to the next official all in an attempt to get a favorable ruling.  

For many on GCA, that whole process is inimical to the spirit of golf.  And worse, it's justified by the fact that a single stroke saved could be worth more than most people make in a year.

So at the root of it is a deep bitterness that these skilled professionals are selling out golf when they leverage the rule process as much as they do.

And no offense was intended to the experts on the rules.  I think it's common for passionate golfers to be obsessive about the game.  It's one of the charms of golf that there are lot of things to obsess about.

[JohnV]

John,

For some of us, the decisions book is more than just something we keep next to the toilet.  It is my job so I keep one next my TV, my computer, my toilet and my bed. When those who have questions about the rules ask the questions, we will answer them as best we can.  

Even within the rules community that can be found at the Leith Society web page there are hard liners and softies.

It would be nice if those who start threads took a look and saw that there were already two or three threads on Wies Bees and the  like before starting new ones.

It would also be nice if we could have two or even three different discussion groups.  One for real architecture, one for other golf related items and maybe one for the OT stuff that people love to put out there, although anyone who posts more than once a month to the OT group should be banned for the next month.

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

I like your terms "Repressd Nostaligist" and "Rules Poindexters". There probably needs to be a third group who aren't nostagists or poindexters just golfers who don't like the Rules and think they should be changed in various ways to suit their particular tastes.

Anyway, the function of officiating does seem to be morphing some on the professional tours and it doesn't seem all that heathy for the game or the Rules.

The Rules of Golf really are different from most any other sport in that they expect the "player" to apply the rules himself properly and if he doesn't for whatever reason he just takes responsibility for it in the form of some penalty to himself.

The way some question that fact today makes one wonder how golf survived as well as it has all these decades. But it has. For that reason I think the Rules should just stay as they are.

Situations like this Wie/Bamberger one may get the attention of the Rules makers and Rules writers enough to get them to consider a change to Rule 6-6d making the penalty two shots instead of DQ after every round but as JVB mentioned doing that could quite easily create situations in play in ensuing rounds where competitors aren't sure what they're exactly playing against and for that reason I doubt they ever will change 6-6d in that way, or in any way.

Roger is right---"If you play this game you gotta know the Rules"

It's pretty clear to see that as time goes on people don't seem as able or willing to take responsibility for themselves and for the way some things are done as they used to.

[JohnV]

The Rules of Golf really are different from most any other sport in that they expect the "player" to apply the rules himself properly and if he doesn't for whatever reason he just takes responsibility for it in the form of some penalty to himself.

Tom,  This is best exemplified in a quote from Stewart Cink this week which I have now made my quote at the bottom of all posts:

In other sports, referees run the game, in golf the rules run the game.

[TEPaul]

"In other sports, referees run the game, in golf the rules run the game."

JVB:

I like that quote a lot. It's very descriptive.

But I like JohnK's terms

1. "Repressed Nostalgist"
2. "Rules Poindexters"

You and I are probably "Rules Poindexters"  

But I do think another term or two should be used for the rest who get so worked up over the Rules of Golf and how they work. Maybe the other two should be--

3. "The Lawyers" who think they have a better way to write and interpret the way golf's Rules should be, and--

4. "The Free-Thinkers" who feel so strongly that the Rules of Golf should be changed in all kinds of little ways to make them simpler or more enjoyable as to how the game is played.

If the Rules of Golf listened to "The Lawyers" the "Committee" would obviously have to set up its own Court of Appeal and Review and that's never going to happen. And if the Rules of Golf listened to "The Free-Thinkers" the Rules of Golf would be changing so often I doubt anyone would ever know what they were at any particularly time.

I'm with you---I think they're fine the way they are and to make them work better golfers, like professionals, who stand to lose something of real significance should just get to know the Rules as well as they know their own golf games. If they don't want to bother to do that they should just take responsibility for their own actions and philosophically suffer the consequences of Golf's penalties.

[peter_p]

    I had the privilege of attending a PGA/USGA rules seminar this month where the two teachers were Larry Startzel and Tom Meeks. It was a most impressive four days. Equally as  impressive was the continual attendance and test taking by a PGA professional/TV commentator.
     Larry Startzel made a very good point during one of the sessions defending tour professionals use of rules officials.
While a player may have knowledge of the rules, from a playing/concentration standpoint it is better to have an official help with situation. And they definitely aren'g going to idly stand by if something is knowingly wrong.
    As said elsewhere, Pete Dye said 'if you get them thinking, they're in trouble". That's reason enough to keep the pros from troubling themselves.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()