[Phil_the_Author]

John,

To what would you ascribe your PASSION for the rules of golf? What was it that made it grow from an interest to a love of learning?

[Bill_McBride]

John,

Eugene CC before or after RTJ. Any thoughts?

I always enjoyed Eugene as it is today.   I've played it a couple of times,  refereed the finals of the Oregon Amateur there as well as working the US Mid-Am and think it holds up well.  I didn't really spend a lot of time studying it the other way around, but I can see that some hole might be interesting in the other direction.

Next time you are there, John, there are routing plans at the same scale hung side by side in the clubhouse.  Interestingly, the course looked to be a bit longer before RTJ reversed it.

I think some really good holes came out of the reversal - the first par 5 for example, now a downhill lay up to a green almost surrounded by a pond.  That hole was a virtually straight up hill par 4 before, couldn't have been much fun to walk.

[Bill_McBride]

Since George mentioned that I've seen a few courses, I thought I'd put up these stats:

I 've played 454 courses, Officiated at 186, did USGA Course Ratings at 140 and attended important tournaments at 22.  Since there are many duplicates on that list, it makes 562 unique courses.

It is actually one more than that, but there is a course in Georgia that I played in 1986 that I can't remember the name of.  It was southeast of Atlanta, just south of the airport.  Lots of hills, red-clay and trees.  Probably built in the 70s or early 80s.  I'd ask for hints, but I doubt the name would ring any bells at this point.

Newnan Country Club?  (My original home town)

Or maybe Orchard Hills just south of Newnan, visible from I-85.

[Will MacEwen]

John,

I don't think this has been addressed.  Without naming names, can you share a few good cheating stories?  Shocking, stupid, clever, anything like that...

[Dan King]

Kalen Braley writes:
Thats all fine and good.  But based on that logic, why don't we "always" play it where it lies.

Amen brother. Keep your bluidy hands off the ball.

Eliminate 90 percent of the rule book.

Cheers,
Dan King

I'll take a two-shot penalty, but I'll be damned if I'm going to play the ball where it lies.
 --Elaine Johnson (after her tee shot hit a tree and caromed into her bra)

[JohnV]

Kalen Braley writes:
Thats all fine and good.  But based on that logic, why don't we "always" play it where it lies.

Amen brother. Keep your bluidy hands off the ball.

Eliminate 90 percent of the rule book.

Cheers,
Dan King

Yup, only 3 of the original 13 rules allow you to lift your ball. Glad the Scots always played it down.

[Greg Krueger]

John, could the course in Atlanta be Lakeside Golf Club (Lakeside Country Club) It was a George Cobb design that is NLE, though
it was due west of the airport on Camp Creek Parkway, not south.

[Dan King]

To tell you the truth I don't have a serious problem if Elaine Johnson uses her hand to take the ball out of her bra. I think there are extreme cases were touching the ball is warranted.

The problem I see is if you let one person use their hand then others think it is only fair that they get to use their hand. Now you have people touching the ball for all sorts of less compelling reasons. You let folks clean their ball on the green, and then you have to say why not on the fringe? You let people tap down ball marks and it becomes why not spike marks? You give all sorts of relief, and it becomes why not give me relief from divot marks?

If the only way to let Ms. Johnson take the ball out of her bra is to allow the game the USGA allows, then I would choose DQing Ms. Johnson and playing a game where you keep your bluidy hands off of the ball.

Cheers,
Dan King

The rules are based on three fundamental principles: That the golfer must play the ball as it lies, play the course as he finds it, and finally, where neither of the first two principles can apply, settle all questions by fair play.
 --Joseph C. Dey, Jr., 1956

[JohnV]

John,

To what would you ascribe your PASSION for the rules of golf? What was it that made it grow from an interest to a love of learning?

Phillip,  
To answer your question, I started to type up the long story of how I got into the rules. As I did that, I realized that the answer was quite simple.  I can say that I enjoyed learning about the rules when I first went to class in 1992 and I thought it was interesting and cool to be out on the course making rulings.  I thought the be-all and end-all would be to be on the PGA Tour as a rules official and all I had to do was learn the rules to make it happen.

It wasn't until 1994 when I was a guest official at the US Mid-Am in Eugene and a guy named Bob Hooper took me under his wing that I got the passion.  Bob spent the day riding with me and asking me questions.  They got tougher as the day went on.  When I couldn't answer a question he would just say, "Look it up and tell me what you find."  I'd do that.  Sometimes the answers weren't there so I had to figure out it.  I'd talk it over with him and eventually work my way to the answer.

Now, I'd always loved problem solving. In a math class in high school, our teacher would hand out a problem each week that we were to solve by the next week.  Usually I'd spend the rest of the hour or day working on it.  I loved the challenge.  The questions usually showed some interesting mathmatical concept.  At the end of the year, she told me I was the only kid she'd had in 10 years who could be a math major.  I enjoyed programming for years for the same reason.

The situations Bob gave me and I was seeing on the course frequently involved problem solving.  That day with Bob really got me going.  I went from being someone who was thinking the best way to learn the rules was to memorize them to knowing that only by understanding the history, the reasons and the similar situations in the book could bring them to life.

In 1997, I got on the Mid-Am Committee and Bob would continue to hit me with questions.  He finally quit in 2000.  Either he ran out of questions or he figured I'd gotten good enough.  He was really the first mentor I had in my life and is still a great friend today.

[JohnV]

John, could the course in Atlanta be Lakeside Golf Club (Lakeside Country Club) It was a George Cobb design that is NLE, though
it was due west of the airport on Camp Creek Parkway, not south.

No, this was about 10-20 miles south of the airport as I remember.  I really have no clue to the name so guessing is probably fruitless.

[JohnV]

The problem I see is if you let one person use their hand then others think it is only fair that they get to use their hand. Now you have people touching the ball for all sorts of less compelling reasons. You let folks clean their ball on the green, and then you have to say why not on the fringe? You let people tap down ball marks and it becomes why not spike marks? You give all sorts of relief, and it becomes why not give me relief from divot marks?
Cheers,
Dan King

The rules are based on three fundamental principles: That the golfer must play the ball as it lies, play the course as he finds it, and finally, where neither of the first two principles can apply, settle all questions by fair play.
 --Joseph C. Dey, Jr., 1956

Dan,

I'll quote Richard Tufts from "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" (as updated by William J. Williams Jr.).  To some extent he agrees with you and so do I, but we also understand the neccessity and the protections in the Rule.

The two basic principles are basically the first two from your quote from Joe Dey, Jr.  Tuft's second principle is "put your ball in play a the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole"

However it is obvious that there will be circumstances when the player will be unable fairly to complete the play of the hole unless he is granted some exceptions to the principle of advancing the ball without touching it.  The exceptions are rather numerous - unfortunately they have to be - and, as a consequence, a rather casual handling of the ball is encouraged and one of golf's really basic principles is thereby weakened.  Unhappily, few golfers seem to appreciate that the safeguards with which the Rules surround the exceptions actually serve to strengthen that you do not touch yoru ball while it is in play.

Furthermore he says:

It should be carefully noted that in situations in which the player is permitted to lift his ball, it must be put in play again no nearer the hole than the spot at which it came to rest (the one exception being when the Committee has authorized the use of a Dropping Zone).  Thus the principle is carefully maintained that the player may not advance his ball toward the hole by any means other than the striking of the ball with the club.

[Dan King]

This is getting a wee bit far afield from getting to know you, but what the heck, my apologies if I'm doing this wrong and I already feel like I know you fairly well.

If only the ruling bodies would stick to Mr. Tufts' wonderful little book.

Almost nobody who plays golf believes the ball should be played as it lies. Why should anyone believe it when almost everyone, in playing golf legally touches the ball at least once and often more often than once on every single hole?

Could people finish the playing a hole without touching the ball? almost always yes. But the rules let them touch the ball even though it isn't required to finish the hole. They let golfers not just touch the ball, but clean it and change its orientation.

It just seems to me the ruling bodies have nobody to blame but themselves for going so far from Tufts principles, and they seem afraid to put on the breaks, constantly adding more reasons to let people touch the ball.

If I were King of the world I'd change the rules allowing each player to touch the ball once, and only once, during the playing of the hole in every nine holes. If you want to touch the ball a second time, it would cost a five-stroke penalty. Perhaps give the other player in the group one opportunity to have each player in the group lift their ball in a nine hole loop if it interferes. I haven't completely thought through this idea, but I like it on its face.

Cheers,
Dan King

Running through the Rules are underlying principles, that, like the steel rods which lie below the surface of reinforced concrete, serve to bind together the brittle material and to give it strength.
 --Richard S. Tufts, 1960

[JohnV]

Dan,

I haven't completely thought through this idea, but I like it on its face.

This is the problem with lay people trying to propose rules changes. 

So the first obvious question is are you going to get rid of the penalty for playing a wrong ball?  If I can't lift it, I might not be able to identify it as mine.  Also, I won't know it is mine until I get it from the hole and then I have to go back and figure out where I hit the wrong ball and find it.

Life would be a lot simpler if we always play match play as the penalty for a wrong ball is loss of hole, but is it fair to prohibit a player from violating that rule because he already picked up his ball once in that 9 holes?

And that is just the start.

[JohnV]

Dan,
I just went through the rule book and looked at the places where we can lift our ball.

Rules where the ball got moved and we have to put it back - 12-1**, 17-4***, 18-1***,2*,3***,4***,5***,6**, 20-3d***
When we got the ball in the wrong place after dropping - 20-2a***, 20-2b***, 20-2c***
Ball in motion from putting green deflected by moving or animate outside agency - 19-1***
Ball in motion hits opponent - 19-3
Balls in places where the course is in bad shape - 25-1, 2 (I guess I could argue against embedded ball relief)
Wrong Putting Green - 25-3**** (Do you really want them to hit it from there?)
Man made objects not really related to golf get in the way - 24-1 (on or in a movable Obs - Mrs J's bra or if ball moves when moving obstruction***), 24-2 (immovable)
Discontinuance of play - 6-8 - but only if Committee stopped play or with very good reason
Damaged ball - 5-3*****
Identifying Ball -12-1*****
Ball assisting or interfering with play - 22******
and finally the putting green - 16-1b

* - We just got penalized and we will get more if we don't lift it and put it back
** - We might be getting penalized and we will get penalized if we don't lift it and put it back.
*** - No penalty, but we will be penalized if we don't lift it and correct the problem. (18-3 opponent might be penalized)
**** - We will be penalized if we don't lift it and put it somewhere else
***** - Restricted rights.  No cleaning. Must give opportunity to observe
****** - Restricted rights. No cleaning. If interfering can only do it by request.

The ones without stars are all our choice to lift or not.  In the case of 19-3, we are cancelilng the stroke.  In 16-1b we must mark and replace.  The others are the ones you seem to have the biggest issues with (Obstructions, GUR and Embedded ball).

Note that in 26, 27 and 28 we don't have to lift the ball

[JohnV]

(Previous post continued)
Of all of these, possibly the only one I could see getting rid of is Ground Under Repair and Embedded balls.  That one really comes down to the "is it fair" test.

I'd rather get rid of most obstructions than get rid of the rule giving relief.  Cart Paths probably could be made integral parts of the course, but do we really want people getting hurt hitting off of them.  While the road behind the 17th hole at TOC is an integral part of the course, Grannie Clark's Wynd is an obstruction.

Sprinkler heads are frequently sunken down to the point where the player can't get a club on the ball and are found in the middle of the fairway or right next to the green.  Take them out and get the crew to hand water from a water truck.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I'll send Dave a copy of the NCGA yearbook I received yesterday. 

John's rules of golf feature (very good, by the way) was followed on the very next page by a putting lesson where the pro from Poppy Hills shows how to use a shot glass to make a straight line on a ball to line up putts.  I had just finished reading this thread...made me chuckle.

[Dan King]

John Vander Borght writes:
This is the problem with lay people trying to propose rules changes.

Yeah, obviously I'd hope any ruling body would spend a bit more  time than the 10 minutes it took me to come up with that idea.

So the first obvious question is are you going to get rid of the penalty for playing a wrong ball?  If I can't lift it, I might not be able to identify it as mine.  Also, I won't know it is mine until I get it from the hole and then I have to go back and figure out where I hit the wrong ball and find it.

Sure. You have doubt about your golf ball, you better not have used your one-time get-out-of-jail-free card. If you play the wrong ball: DQ. The ruling bodies over the years have wimped out on the DQ.

Life would be a lot simpler if we always play match play as the penalty for a wrong ball is loss of hole, but is it fair to prohibit a player from violating that rule because he already picked up his ball once in that 9 holes?

I give the player an out -- a five-shot penalty. It should be clear to everyone that touching the ball is taboo -- something totally lacking in the USGA/R&A game.

The USGA/R&A game is obsessed with fairness. Everything has to be fair. You even mention it in your response. If Joe gets relief from ball marks on the green then Kaylen should get relief from divot holes. Everything has to be fair.

Screw fair. In the long run the best players will win. In the short run, the best player might get screwed. Golf can be a test on how well you handle getting screwed just as much as it is a test on physical golfing ability.

The others are the ones you seem to have the biggest issues with (Obstructions, GUR and Embedded ball).

My biggest issue is letting golfers touch their ball on the putting green. Think of all the problems that will be solved if we just stop allowing that. No more slippery slope about players wanting to touch the ball elsewhere. No more Shivas concern about cheater line, no more five hour rounds. But yes, if your ball hits obstructions, GUR, other putting green, etc... learn to live with it. If you need to touch the ball because of where you hit it you get the single get-out-of-jail-free card and if you need another, pay the five-stroke penalty.

Cheers,
Dan King

It's like a cold slap in the face. You're mad and you're not trying to protect anything out there anymore.
 --Mark McCumber (on the effects of a quadruple bogey)

[JohnV]

Dan, enjoy the game of danking, I'll stick to golf.

[Dan King]

My game is much closer to the idea of golf. You play USGA/R&A touchy golf.

How do you resolve the Tufts' idea of  "However it is obvious that there will be circumstances when the player will be unable fairly to complete the play of the hole unless he is granted some exceptions to the principle of advancing the ball without touching it" with letting every golfer touch the ball at least once and often many more times than once on every golf hole?  Every golfer on every hole needs that exception?

The USGA/R&A has changed the exception into the rule.

Cheers,
Dan King

It consists in pitting little balls into little holes with instruments ill adapted to the purpose.
 --Horace Hutchinson

[JohnV]

Dan,  Ground under repair and lifting from it was in the 1744 Leith Code.  So was lifting your ball if it interfered with another player's ball (touching in those days).  Obstructions were added in 1814 in Burgess.
In 1775 it allowed one ball  to be lifted if it was too close to the other(the 6" score card). 

Lifting the ball on the putting green when it might assist another player was introduced in 1891.

You can't blame the USGA for any of these as it didn't exist yet.  So that is all the R&A's fault.

1908 lifting for identification was added.  1902, in match play ball within 1 club length other than on the green or 6 inches on the green may be lifted.

So, it isn't as if any of this is new stuff.

The only thing that is new at all is that in 1960, unlimited lifting on the putting green was added to the rules.

Experiments have been tried on occasion.  For example, in 1968, the rule on the putting green was changed to allow cleaning only before the first putt.  That lasted 2 years.

[Dan King]

I'm reasonably familiar with all the history you mentioned.

Most of what you listed can, arguably, fit within the Tufts principle.

But how do you resolve this:
The only thing that is new at all is that in 1960, unlimited lifting on the putting green was added to the rules.

with this:

"However it is obvious that there will be circumstances when the player will be unable fairly to complete the play of the hole unless he is granted some exceptions to the principle of advancing the ball without touching it."

Is there any sort of argument for unlimited touching of the ball fitting within the exception Tufts mentions?

Cheers,
Dan King

Never let them see you sweat. Especially in HD, it looks like a mudslide.
 --Stephen Colbert

[Neil Regan]

John,

  Here is a photo from just prior to the 1946 US Open. The caption says

"...
U. S. Golf Association Officials have outlawed the use of deep-scored approaching irons in the tourney,
tightening up on rules which have been rather loosely regarded in the last few years...."

Are you familiar with this piece of rules history ?
Can you tell us what happened with the 1946 new rule regarding grooves ?
What were the prior "rules which have been rather loosely regarded " ?
Did the new rule apply to all clubs, or just "approaching irons" ?
Did the rule remain on the books and evolve into its current state, or was it forgotten until recent times ?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks for doing this John,  (Dan I hope you're up for it?)

Can you tell us a little more about why this wasn't permanently adopted?  Seems like heaven to me.

Experiments have been tried on occasion.  For example, in 1968, the rule on the putting green was changed to allow cleaning only before the first putt.  That lasted 2 years.

[Kevin_Reilly]

To Neil Regan -- that reminded me of this grooves controversy at the 1977 PGA Championship at Pebble Beach:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19770812&id=WnMjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aWcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4094,4662685

[Neil Regan]

Kevin,

  That article from 1977 says that the groove rule had been on the books since about 1940. I guess that means that sometime after 1946 it regained its status as "loosely regarded."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()