Simplifying the playing rules

[Brent Hutto]

In other words, you have to have some rules (or assumptions or etiquette) that are agreed upon by the "like-minded individuals" beyond the three ones that were described above.

That is my point.  Nothing can be as simple as some of you want to make it sound.

Well, yes it's an assumption. But there's no explicit agreement involved and I'm saying that in my experience those assumptions seem to be justified. Nobody yet has ever chosen to use a superball or putt with a pool cue (although honestly if they wanted to do either of those things I think we could still have a fair game of it). But generally speaking anyone who isn't willing to hit the ball with the far end of a crooked stick until it's in the hole isn't going to play golf with one rule or with a whole book of them.

My point is that relief from various situations and nitpicking things like worrying about whether someone swings with a golf glove under their arm are neither necessary or fundamental to the game. The game I described, as played by the people I have played it with, is instantly identifiable as a perfectly valid golf match whether you're a golfer or someone who has only seem the game played on TV. Yet it has one rule (and I suppose some basic assumptions) instead of a hundred Rules and countless Decisions (and some basic assumptions).

Having said all that, I have no patience for proposals to "simplify" the Rules if those proposals end up specifying particularly ways to measure picking up your ball and improving your lie...but only a little bit and only in a little manner. That, along with Lift, Clean and Place and Winter Rules and Root Rules and Mulligans and other nonsense of that kind, takes the game farther and farther from its essential spirit and simplifies nothing. A lot of people who want "simpler" Rules just want different ones and haven't bothered to enumerate all the consequences. If you dont' want a dozen different relief procedures and a hundred Decisions then you're going to have to do away with relief and do away with most of the Rules to start with. Otherwise it's like trying to simplify your life by moving a bunch of stuff from your clloset to the garage.

[Peter Galea]

1. Play the ball as it lies.

2. Play the course as you find it.

3. When neither of those is possible, do what's fair.

[Brent Hutto]

1. Play the ball as it lies.

2. Play the course as you find it.

3. When neither of those is possible, do what's fair.

4. And if the guy you're playing with thinks that means he can get by with acting like a jerk play with someone else next time.

That ought cover most situations short of a big-time tournament.

[Ken Moum]

[quote author=John Vander Borght In other words, you have to have some rules (or assumptions or etiquette) that are agreed upon by the "like-minded individuals" beyond the three ones that were described above.

That is my point.  Nothing can be as simple as some of you want to make it sound.[/quote]

So how about 10 rules?  Back in 1982 Golf Magazine developed 10 rules that simplified the game. They then printed the rules on the back of a bag tag and sold it. I still have a couple I bought from them back then, in fact, on is sitting on my desk.

Here's the 10 Golden Rules (FWIW, I think I'd be willing to play under them)

1. Play the ball as it lies.

2. Don't move, bend, or break anything growing or fixed, except to swing. Don't press anything down.

3. You may lift natural objects not fixed or growing, except in a water hazard or bunker. No penalty.

4. You may move man-made objects even in a bunker or water hazard. If they are immovable, you may drop within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, no nearer the hole. In a hazard, you must drop in nthe hazard or bunker. No penalty.

5. You may drop away from casual water, ground under repair, burrowing animal holes or casts. On the putting green, place, or in a hazard drop, at the nearest point of relief,no nearer the hole; otherwise drop within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, no nearer the hole. No penalty.

6. In a water hazard or bunker, don't touch the water or ground with your hand or club before the stroke.

7. If you hit your ball into a water hazard and cannot play it, either drop behind the hazard or at a place where you played the shot. One penalty stroke. If you hit into a lateral hazard, you may also drop within two club-lengths of the point where the ball last crossed the hazard margin, or a point equidistant from the hole on the oppposite margin. One penalty stroke.

8. When you hit your ball out of bounds or lose it, add a penalty stroke, go back and drop ball at the place where you last played the shot. On the tee, you may tee the ball. If you think you have hit your ball out of bounds or lost it outside a water hazard, play a provisional ball before searching for the first one.

9. When you have an unplayable lie, you may drop a ball at the place where you played the previous shot, adding a penalty stroke. On the tee, you may tee the ball. Alternatively, drop within two club-lengths, no nearer the hole, or any distance behind the unplayable spot, keeping it between you and the hole. If the ball is in a bunker, you must drop in the bunker, under either of the alternative options.

10. On the putting green, you may repair ball marks and old hole plugs on the line of the putt, but not spike marks.
 
Ken

[Norbert P]

 Most folks in casual play seem to score OB as a lateral hazard. I.e., drop the ball at nearest point of exit, one stroke penalty (hitting three) and swat the ball ahead.  Everyone is concerned with speed of play, most emphatically by the golf course management, so they don't want anybody running back to hit another shot. The provisional isn''t always used because it isn't always known to be OB or lost. 
   Anyway, I think we should just play it as a lateral hazard but with a two stroke penalty - thus, implying that the provisional woould have landed inbounds. Speeds play, keeps the Driver from being the automatic choice off the tee (more risk),  and simplifies the rule.

  I also believe the "Honours" off the tee can be dropped in casual play.  I'm not a long hitter. Nor do I usually get honours. The dilemma is this . . . the short hitter/higher scorer tees last, watches ball flutter, others advancing with clubs ready, but hey have to wait for schlub to put his head cover on his useless f&^% Driver and get ready for his next shot, which the others will have to wait for the foozlin' fool to get to. Repeat, ad nauseum, and the high handicapper is rushing everywhere to keep up. With skills suffering from weariness and somber attitude.

 Five stroke penalty per round of 18 holes for using a cart unless an ADA cardholder.

Two stroke penalty for fluffing.

[JohnV]

[quote author=John Vander Borght In other words, you have to have some rules (or assumptions or etiquette) that are agreed upon by the "like-minded individuals" beyond the three ones that were described above.

That is my point.  Nothing can be as simple as some of you want to make it sound.

So how about 10 rules?  Back in 1982 Golf Magazine developed 10 rules that simplified the game. They then printed the rules on the back of a bag tag and sold it. I still have a couple I bought from them back then, in fact, on is sitting on my desk.
[/quote]

Ken, those are good basic rules for play (with the exception that you don't get relief from an immovable obstruction in a water hazard anymore.)

They cover most things that will happen on the course on an everyday basis. 

They don't deal with lots of issues that are important for golf.  Clubs, balls, form of play, teeing ground, flagstick, identifying your ball, wrong ball, practice, advice, match play, stroke play, scorecards, caddies, committee responsibilities, dealing with disputes, how to drop, how to mark and replace, and, of course, the basic definition of the game.

These things might seem trivial (and some are), but without a complete definition of them (or most of them), the game can be played, but not truely contested in anything like a correct manner.

Take baseball as an example of the rules.  Well, we all know there are 4 bases with 90 feet between them, 9 players on a side, 9 innings, 3 outs, 3 strikes, 4 balls, a pitcher who throws the ball and a batter who hits it.  Pretty simple huh.

The Major League Baseball Rule book has only 10 rules compared to 34 for golf so everyone probably thinks its simpler.  Well, the 10 rules have 119 subsections, while golf's rules have 121.  Baseball needs 83 definititions, golf only needs 50.  The basic portion of the rules of golf takes 93 small pages while baseball's rule book takes 124 full sized pages.  Golf has local rules which add to this, but baseball parks have ground rules.  I don't know if there is a decision book for baseball, but I bet there is.

Also, baseball's rules don't even cover the equipment: bats, balls, gloves etc.

[Mike Sweeney]

John,

Major League baseball went 11 years without any rules changes untill the recent 2007 changes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSSP33214020070217

Has golf ever had a stretch like that?

[JohnV]

Mike,

Baseball officialdom is obviously much more inflexible than golf's ruling bodies.

[TEPaul]

JohnV;

Your reply #36 is an excellent and completely understandable answer to those 10 Rules Golf Magazine apparently came up with in 1982. The necessary areas and situations they left out are almost beyond comical which only goes to prove that these golf magazines really are dumb sometimes.

I think it was around 1990 when they wrote an article about the Ryder Cup in which they quoted Captain Ray Floyd who apparently told his team to putt out and put pressure on the opponents. I called Golf Magazine's HQs and told them you can't do that in the Ryder Cup format and was told---"Of course you can, the pros putt out every week on tour." I told them that's stroke play and the Ryder Cup is match play and you can't do that. They told me of course you can. So I asked the guy if they had a Rules book around and to go read it, and he put the phone down and came back about five minutes later and basically just said: "Whoops!"   

[JohnV]

John,

Major League baseball went 11 years without any rules changes untill the recent 2007 changes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSSP33214020070217

Has golf ever had a stretch like that?

I'm sitting in on one of the NCGA's Rules Workshops this as I type this (got to learn what I'm teaching next month).   One of the students came up to me a while ago.  This is his first rules workshop and he was asking how he could get more involved in the rules.   As we were talking he mentioned that he'd been a softball umpire in the past so I asked him about their rules vs golf.  He agreed that they were really just as complicated.

[MargaretC]

My husband is a stickler for applying the rules of golf and, although it was annoying at first, I've come to appreciate it.  They provide a framework for the game. 


JohnV- aren't you setting a poor example to the other students by reading a discussion group in class?   

[TEPaul]

Another factor to consider with the length and complexity of the Rules of Golf, particularly considering the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book is the Decisions book is really just a compilation of mostly real life questions on the Rules of Golf by golfers. The Decisions Book has always been that way.

Do any of you believe it would be a good idea if the two administrative bodies on The Rules of Golf (R&A & USGA) just steadfastly refused to answer golfers questions on the interpretation of the Rules? 

But having said all that and having seemingly defended the way the Rules of Golf are, I still do believe in the danger of what I call "Rules-creep". For quite a few years the Rules-writers and interpreters have erred on the side of maximum equitableness in perhaps too many situations and that probably does create more complexity in the Rules. There's an excellent "working principle" in Richard Tufts little Rules bible, "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" that explains, "The Rules should never try to deal with the exceptional". Good advice, indeed, in my opinion.

[Mark Bourgeois]

It's interesting to see how many of the proposals are not really rule simplification as they are rule replacement: replace a rule or set of rules with principles. (Okay, maybe principles are rules, too -- rules of thumb...)

Here's the problem as I see it:
Some rules are called upon often and therefore embed in the memory early and often.  We tend to think of these as "easy to understand" rules.  For example, who tees off: we commit this rule to memory pretty much after 1-3 applications.  It's like kickoff honors in football or who bats first in baseball.  You will see this rule applied at the beginning of every single game, so if you watch the games you will learn this rule pretty quickly.

But some rules are not called upon often.  By not called upon often I mean:
1. Rule X, Subsection 97-K;
2. Infrequent-experienced circumstances muddy which rule should be called upon.

I am sure we will continue with our legalistic approach, which effectively creates two sets of rules: one for competitors and one for casual players. (Which doesn't mean they're not trying!)

It sure would be great if the ruling bodies would consider a set of principles to cover those infrequent-experienced circumstances, something like "When In Doubt, Don't Touch the Ball."  Would they be the "Rules?" No, I guess not, at least "Official Rules."  But they would prevent golfers from breaking the Rules -- assuming they cared!

If the ruling bodies gave these principles official sanction, that would cut down mightily on the unintentional cheating, don't you think?

Mark

PS I must have read every "golf rules explained / simplified" book out there -- IMHO they all stink!  But there is ONE, a magical book I carry in my bag everywhere I go and refer to during a round.  This book is so simple I actually can find the rule and apply it without causing a delay in play!  It has waterproof pages and is indestructible: my copy has odd colors on it, is bent funny ways and has pages that take extra effort to separate, but it continues to get it done.  (It's readable.)

This book is called "Shortcut to Golf Rules" and is sanctioned by the USGA. (The good kind of sanction, not the Iran kind.) My copy was published by Clock Tower Press (RIP), but now is published by some outfit called Shortcut Books.  Apparently they have a website: www.shortcutbooks.com

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

I also think there has been a trend in the last few years towards trying to be to fair to all people in all situations. I believe that the problem facing most players is that because there is so much information in the rules book rather than making the rules clearer it confuses most players with an information overload. Although with much simpler rules you will find more situations which might be considered unfair, I believe this is still better than having to disqualify competitors in almost every club competition due to wrong rules interpretation.

Jon

[TEPaul]

"Although with much simpler rules you will find more situations which might be considered unfair, I believe this is still better than having to disqualify competitors in almost every club competition due to wrong rules interpretation."

Jon:

I believe I would agree with you there. That, and the fact that more players should understand better that "breaks" always cut both ways and over a lifetime probably in about equal proportion to one another. 

[JohnV]

My husband is a stickler for applying the rules of golf and, although it was annoying at first, I've come to appreciate it.  They provide a framework for the game. 


JohnV- aren't you setting a poor example to the other students by reading a discussion group in class?   

I'm  not a student in the class.  I'm here because I'll be teaching the class in a few weeks so I'm just sitting in the back taking in the atmosphere and being called on for my opinion once in a while.  I even skipped the morning to do a pre-site for a tournament later in the spring.

[JohnV]

Another factor to consider with the length and complexity of the Rules of Golf, particularly considering the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book is the Decisions book is really just a compilation of mostly real life questions on the Rules of Golf by golfers. The Decisions Book has always been that way.

I have some old decisions books at home and back in the '20s and '30s, they even identified which club asked the question.

A lot of the newer decisions are being put in there to help the Committee with rulings as much as to cover specific situations.  Some are there so that when a player says, "Show me where it says that", we can.  I know that most of us loved it when the put in the decision that says if a caddie rides in a cart when it is prohibited, the player gets penalized.  We got hit with that one a few times a year on the Futures Tour.

[JohnV]

Tom,

I also think there has been a trend in the last few years towards trying to be to fair to all people in all situations. I believe that the problem facing most players is that because there is so much information in the rules book rather than making the rules clearer it confuses most players with an information overload. Although with much simpler rules you will find more situations which might be considered unfair, I believe this is still better than having to disqualify competitors in almost every club competition due to wrong rules interpretation.

Jon

It isn't so much trying to be fair as it is looking at the potential gain from a breach and making sure that the player doesn't get over or under penalized.  For example, the change to the penalty for a ball accidentally striking you.  After watching Jeff Maggert get two strokes when his shot came back and hit him in a bunker, I think that a lot of people felt that two strokes was too severe.  After all, he still had to hit the shot from the bunker again.  Obviously there is a difference between accidentally deflecting the ball and purposely doing so and the rules now provide different penalties for the two events.

The loosening of what a player can do in a bunker, both before and after hitting a shot, seems to me to be a realization that you wouldn't be learning any more than you would already knew by placing your feet or hitting a shot.

The wrong ball change was a realization that the ball could be lifted for other reasons in a bunker or water hazard so why not for identification.  This actually "hurts" the player since he now can be penalized for something that wasn't a penalty before.  But, why should the player be exempt from penalty in a bunker when they aren't somewhere else.

[Chris Cupit]

"The loosening of what a player can do in a bunker, both before and after hitting a shot, seems to me to be a realization that you wouldn't be learning any more than you would already knew by placing your feet or hitting a shot."

But......

Unfortunately this situation can still occur and the player is penalized two strokes:

Player A hits a ball into the left rough and his ball lies just outside a bunker.  The player must stand in the bunker to play his next shot and he does playing into another bunker in front of the green.  Player A then rakes his footprints and proceeds to hit his third shot.

He is penalized two strokes for testing the condition in a hazard under 13-4 and none of the exceptions protect him!!!  (He would have been fine if his ball had also been in the bunker and (perhaps?) if he could not see that his ball was in a hazard prior to raking his footprints!?)

Anyway.....

I, too, feel there are "too many rules" and came up with a game that would try and simplify and speed up the current game but like JVB alluded to, once you start thinking of all the things that can occur, the rules book gets pretty thick, pretty quick. 

My game would require you play the same ball from teeing ground to the hole without ever touching the ball (FOR ANY REASON).  If you picked up your ball and moved it for any reason within a club length of where it lay, you would add one penalty stroke and if you replaced a ball within one clublength of where you and your opponent or fellow competitor felt it was lost, you added two penalty strokes.

No stroke and distance but a much harsher penalty for losing a ball in a water hazard.

Without marking, cleaning..etc.. the game would be a lot faster.  It would also encourage more matches as in this game, you could have a situation where the player is so stuck he really can't hole out or finish the hole in some cases.  That may be a benefit--destroy the pencil and card mentality

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

I also think there has been a trend in the last few years towards trying to be to fair to all people in all situations. I believe that the problem facing most players is that because there is so much information in the rules book rather than making the rules clearer it confuses most players with an information overload. Although with much simpler rules you will find more situations which might be considered unfair, I believe this is still better than having to disqualify competitors in almost every club competition due to wrong rules interpretation.

Jon

It isn't so much trying to be fair as it is looking at the potential gain from a breach and making sure that the player doesn't get over or under penalized.  For example, the change to the penalty for a ball accidentally striking you.  After watching Jeff Maggert get two strokes when his shot came back and hit him in a bunker, I think that a lot of people felt that two strokes was too severe.  After all, he still had to hit the shot from the bunker again.  Obviously there is a difference between accidentally deflecting the ball and purposely doing so and the rules now provide different penalties for the two events.

The loosening of what a player can do in a bunker, both before and after hitting a shot, seems to me to be a realization that you wouldn't be learning any more than you would already knew by placing your feet or hitting a shot.

The wrong ball change was a realization that the ball could be lifted for other reasons in a bunker or water hazard so why not for identification.  This actually "hurts" the player since he now can be penalized for something that wasn't a penalty before.  But, why should the player be exempt from penalty in a bunker when they aren't somewhere else.

John,

It isn't so much trying to be fair as it is looking at the potential gain from a breach and making sure that the player doesn't get over or under penalized.

Please read your own statement! If it isn't about fairness then it doesn't matter about the severity of the penalty.

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.

Golf is a game where the player is supposed to act as his own rules official. By making the rules more complicated it is becoming very difficult for the casual golfer (the majority of golfers), playing the odd competition, to realistically do this. So we will reach the stage at some point where either an rules official must accompany every flight (very expensive) or accepting that often players winning tournaments will infact have unknowingly broken a rule and so may not be the rightful winner. Is this good for golf.

[TEPaul]

Chris:

Your example in reply #49 of a player still being penalized under Rule 13-4 is an interesting one. I haven't thought that much about it but it seems to me the Rules may be able to fix that unfortunate circumstance by doing something like expanding the language in the answer to Dec. 13-4/36 to include an example like the one you gave (or just write another decision to take care of it) because the logic is essentially the same as Decision 13-4/36---eg even if the player's ball was not in the first bunker, the player's stance was and for that reason he had tested the condition of the hazard without penalty and was gaining no additional knowledge or assistance by smoothing his footprints before playing his ball from the next bunker.

[Ken Moum]

Ummm.

Tom and Chris, can a player be penalized for raking a a fairway bunker when his ball is in a different bunker near the green?

I know you can't make a swing or rake a "similar hazard," but it seems as if raking a fairway bunker is an unlikely candidate for that violation.

Am I missing something?

Ken

[TEPaul]

"I know you can't make a swing or rake a "similar hazard," but it seems as if raking a fairway bunker is an unlikely candidate for that violation.
Am I missing something?"

Ah, yeah, apparently because your ball is in a bunker you're prohibited under Rule 13-4 from testing the condition of a bunker or a SIMILAR bunker other than in the act of taking your stance in the bunker (when your ball is in a bunker). The irony is if the player's ball had been IN the first bunker he would not have been penalized for raking his stance even if his ball was in another bunker.

This is a little like that time Hal Sutton hit a shot from a lie just short of a water hazard and his ball landed in the other side of the water hazard and since he had mud on his club he put the club in the water to wash off the mud. He was penalized because his ball was in the other side of the water hazard and putting his club in the water on the near side constituted testing the condition of the hazard.

My suggestion of expanding the answer in Dec 13-4/36 is simply that this player by necessity took a stance in the bunker even if his ball was not in the bunker his stance constitutes the same logic as taking a stance in the first bunker when his ball was in that first bunker and that that should be treated similarily to the situation in Dec 13-4/36.

[JohnV]

Ummm.

Tom and Chris, can a player be penalized for raking a a fairway bunker when his ball is in a different bunker near the green?

I know you can't make a swing or rake a "similar hazard," but it seems as if raking a fairway bunker is an unlikely candidate for that violation.

Am I missing something?

Ken

Unfortunately you are.  In the example that Chris gave, you are penalized.

This happened at the Senior Open last year.  A player was standing in a bunker, but his ball was not in it.  He hit his shot into another bunker and then his caddie raked his footprints.  As the rule currently reads, he has tested the condition of a similar hazard and is penalized under Rule 13-4.

I think that almost every rules person felt this was not a good thing.  I also think that it happened so late in the Rules update cycle that the USGA and R&A decided to wait until the next revision to change anything.  Things like this take some amount of thought to make sure all things have been considered and to push a change through at the last minute might open other holes.  I'd guess that there will be a decision in 2010 and/or a rules change in 2012 to somehow deal with this.

[JohnV]

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.