Golf Rules in Perspective

[Kyle Harris]

I've always posited that the golf rules are both simple and not especially in need of modification.

ESPN.com has a American Gridiron Football Rules quiz that demonstrated my point beautifully. For the record, I got 2 out of 6.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20785847/2017-football-rules-quiz-smart-nfl-ref

Absolutely NONE of these rules are as self-evident as any rule in golf.

[John Connolly]

Totally agree that the NFL rulebook is bloated and obscure. Just like golf's.

[Kyle Harris]

Totally agree that the NFL rulebook is bloated and obscure. Just like golf's.

There isn't a situation in golf that isn't covered by:

1. Play the course as you find it, the act of preparing for a stroke may not improve your circumstance.
2. Don't touch your ball until it is in the hole.
3. You may not use the rules to advance your ball nearer the hole, only a stroke.
4. You must be able to locate the specific location of your ball anywhere on the golf course excepting a water hazard, in which case you must be able to determine where it entered the hazard, if this cannot be done, refer to #3.
5. If you must replace or move your ball, add one stroke to your score for the privilege, refer to #3 then drop within two club-lengths.

In most other games, there are no base assumptions. I applied the "position of the ball is more important than the player" in the out-of-bounds case, but forgot the differing rules for out-of-bounds in regard to Offense and Defense, and Kicking and Receiving teams, etc. etc.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There isn't a situation in golf that isn't covered by:

Marking your ball on a putting green is not covered by the quasi-principles you listed. Or if you hit it into an obstruction, etc.

I've never thought the Rules were all that complicated, but (for the most part) I like the 2019 proposed, simpler, clearer rules.

[Pete_Pittock]

There isn't a situation in golf that isn't covered by:

Marking your ball on a putting green is not covered by the quasi-principles you listed. Or if you hit it into an obstruction, etc.

I've never thought the Rules were all that complicated, but (for the most part) I like the 2019 proposed, simpler, clearer rules.

1 thru 5 is supposed to cover everything. With that stipulation, marking the ball on the putting green is covered under point 2.
You can't. Obstruction covered under point 5. It directs reflief thru penalty.

[Mike Sweeney]

There isn't a situation in golf that isn't covered by:

Marking your ball on a putting green is not covered by the quasi-principles you listed. Or if you hit it into an obstruction, etc.

I think "Rules by Kyle" is not allowing marking on the green, on purpose. This allows the return of "The Stymie" -https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-a-stymie-in-golf-1561087


Ignoring the damage to the green questions, there is no way to create "equity in the field" when three people are playing in a 3-some and the rest are in foursomes. Those players in the threesome will always have one less obstruction to avoid on all 18 holes and greens.


Thus, I like "Rules by Kyle" and I would add in the ball on the green questions to protect the field and greens. I realize I just added time to the match and reduced strategy on the greens.

[Kyle Harris]

Etiquette, not rule, would dictate you continue putting until your ball is holed and therefore out of the way.

[A.G._Crockett]

Totally agree that the NFL rulebook is bloated and obscure. Just like golf's.

There isn't a situation in golf that isn't covered by:

1. Play the course as you find it, the act of preparing for a stroke may not improve your circumstance.
2. Don't touch your ball until it is in the hole.
3. You may not use the rules to advance your ball nearer the hole, only a stroke.
4. You must be able to locate the specific location of your ball anywhere on the golf course excepting a water hazard, in which case you must be able to determine where it entered the hazard, if this cannot be done, refer to #3.
5. If you must replace or move your ball, add one stroke to your score for the privilege, refer to #3 then drop within two club-lengths.

In most other games, there are no base assumptions. I applied the "position of the ball is more important than the player" in the out-of-bounds case, but forgot the differing rules for out-of-bounds in regard to Offense and Defense, and Kicking and Receiving teams, etc. etc.

Kyle,
With all due respect, there are plenty of situations that aren't covered by these five "base assumptions".  Otherwise, we wouldn't need a spiral bound decision book on the Rules that covers approximately 1000 such situations.

There are white, red, and yellow stakes on almost every golf course, and the meanings, options, and penalties vary accordingly.  There are public roads, and there are cart paths.  There are fans around greens, there are out buildings, there are fences, and there are sprinkler boxes and sprinkler heads and flagsticks, and on and on and on.  Players mistakenly hit each other's golf balls from time to time, or can't find their own, or are using the same one as a fellow competitor, or don't think they will be able to find their original ball, but then do find it.  Incorrect drops are taken, wrong scores are recorded, and on and on and on.

I think that the question of whether or not the Rules of Golf are simple relative to other sports is open for debate, and I think you could put together a quiz on the Rules of Golf similar to the you provided for football that would be far harder and more arcane than the football quiz.  The USGA has such quizzes available on the website, and they are at times pretty mystifying.

I coached high school basketball for 39 years, which is about the same length of time that I've been playing golf.  For MY money, the rules of basketball are far and away more easily mastered than the Rules of Golf, if only because less stuff happens on a 94x50 court than on a 150 acre golf course with trees and creeks and sand and pavement and greens and so on.  And I feel the same way about the rules of baseball vs. golf, fwiw.  Football is a bit of different story because of the amount of contact in close quarters, but even that set of rules is more easily mastered that golf.

As to the proposed revisions of the Rules of Golf, it is the first time in my memory that the USGA has made a concerted effort to do what the rule-making bodies in the other sports most typically do: treat like situations alike, and seek to remove judgement calls whenever possible.  Personally, I would have liked to have seen the USGA go even farther with the revision proposals and find a way to have a single rule for the various situations that arise with red, yellow, and white stakes, but it may be that the proposal to allow the use of red stakes without a water feature is an effort to do just that.

[Kyle Harris]

Totally agree that the NFL rulebook is bloated and obscure. Just like golf's.

There isn't a situation in golf that isn't covered by:

1. Play the course as you find it, the act of preparing for a stroke may not improve your circumstance.
2. Don't touch your ball until it is in the hole.
3. You may not use the rules to advance your ball nearer the hole, only a stroke.
4. You must be able to locate the specific location of your ball anywhere on the golf course excepting a water hazard, in which case you must be able to determine where it entered the hazard, if this cannot be done, refer to #3.
5. If you must replace or move your ball, add one stroke to your score for the privilege, refer to #3 then drop within two club-lengths.

In most other games, there are no base assumptions. I applied the "position of the ball is more important than the player" in the out-of-bounds case, but forgot the differing rules for out-of-bounds in regard to Offense and Defense, and Kicking and Receiving teams, etc. etc.

Kyle,
With all due respect, there are plenty of situations that aren't covered by these five "base assumptions".  Otherwise, we wouldn't need a spiral bound decision book on the Rules that covers approximately 1000 such situations.

There are white, red, and yellow stakes on almost every golf course, and the meanings, options, and penalties vary accordingly.  There are public roads, and there are cart paths.  There are fans around greens, there are out buildings, there are fences, and there are sprinkler boxes and sprinkler heads and flagsticks, and on and on and on.  Players mistakenly hit each other's golf balls from time to time, or can't find their own, or are using the same one as a fellow competitor, or don't think they will be able to find their original ball, but then do find it.  Incorrect drops are taken, wrong scores are recorded, and on and on and on.

I think that the question of whether or not the Rules of Golf are simple relative to other sports is open for debate, and I think you could put together a quiz on the Rules of Golf similar to the you provided for football that would be far harder and more arcane than the football quiz.  The USGA has such quizzes available on the website, and they are at times pretty mystifying.

I coached high school basketball for 39 years, which is about the same length of time that I've been playing golf.  For MY money, the rules of basketball are far and away more easily mastered than the Rules of Golf, if only because less stuff happens on a 94x50 court than on a 150 acre golf course with trees and creeks and sand and pavement and greens and so on.  And I feel the same way about the rules of baseball vs. golf, fwiw.  Football is a bit of different story because of the amount of contact in close quarters, but even that set of rules is more easily mastered that golf.

As to the proposed revisions of the Rules of Golf, it is the first time in my memory that the USGA has made a concerted effort to do what the rule-making bodies in the other sports most typically do: treat like situations alike, and seek to remove judgement calls whenever possible.  Personally, I would have liked to have seen the USGA go even farther with the revision proposals and find a way to have a single rule for the various situations that arise with red, yellow, and white stakes, but it may be that the proposal to allow the use of red stakes without a water feature is an effort to do just that.

I am curious to hear your interpretation on "Traveling" in regard to the complexity of the Rules of Basketball. How about what constitutes a "Balk" in Baseball?

As for your points regarding hazards, my rules cover them rather succinctly. I simplify the options presented in the rules of golf. There is nothing compulsory about a free drop, nor is there a penalty situation not covered by playing the ball from the original spot. That's about as clear and concise and simple as we can get. So yes, my rules cover all your situations , it's just not in a way you find palatable - and that is the contradiction to the simplification crowd. The simplest course of action is already codified as an option.

Oh. Wait. That means you might shoot a 98 in lieu of your standard 94. Or it means you have to select the necessary set of tees for your game. Or you have to play around an obstruction. All of the above probably speed things along, too.

If you approach any situation in the game with the idea that you can only advance the ball with a club and that if you must touch your ball you add a stroke you'll figure it out, and quickly at that.

And that's the difference between the rules of golf, which have simple, clear, concise, and equitable options available and the other sports and games. Golf offers options which you may employ if you so chose. If you want simple, then choose the simplest option.

[A.G._Crockett]

Totally agree that the NFL rulebook is bloated and obscure. Just like golf's.

There isn't a situation in golf that isn't covered by:

1. Play the course as you find it, the act of preparing for a stroke may not improve your circumstance.
2. Don't touch your ball until it is in the hole.
3. You may not use the rules to advance your ball nearer the hole, only a stroke.
4. You must be able to locate the specific location of your ball anywhere on the golf course excepting a water hazard, in which case you must be able to determine where it entered the hazard, if this cannot be done, refer to #3.
5. If you must replace or move your ball, add one stroke to your score for the privilege, refer to #3 then drop within two club-lengths.

In most other games, there are no base assumptions. I applied the "position of the ball is more important than the player" in the out-of-bounds case, but forgot the differing rules for out-of-bounds in regard to Offense and Defense, and Kicking and Receiving teams, etc. etc.

Kyle,
With all due respect, there are plenty of situations that aren't covered by these five "base assumptions".  Otherwise, we wouldn't need a spiral bound decision book on the Rules that covers approximately 1000 such situations.

There are white, red, and yellow stakes on almost every golf course, and the meanings, options, and penalties vary accordingly.  There are public roads, and there are cart paths.  There are fans around greens, there are out buildings, there are fences, and there are sprinkler boxes and sprinkler heads and flagsticks, and on and on and on.  Players mistakenly hit each other's golf balls from time to time, or can't find their own, or are using the same one as a fellow competitor, or don't think they will be able to find their original ball, but then do find it.  Incorrect drops are taken, wrong scores are recorded, and on and on and on.

I think that the question of whether or not the Rules of Golf are simple relative to other sports is open for debate, and I think you could put together a quiz on the Rules of Golf similar to the you provided for football that would be far harder and more arcane than the football quiz.  The USGA has such quizzes available on the website, and they are at times pretty mystifying.

I coached high school basketball for 39 years, which is about the same length of time that I've been playing golf.  For MY money, the rules of basketball are far and away more easily mastered than the Rules of Golf, if only because less stuff happens on a 94x50 court than on a 150 acre golf course with trees and creeks and sand and pavement and greens and so on.  And I feel the same way about the rules of baseball vs. golf, fwiw.  Football is a bit of different story because of the amount of contact in close quarters, but even that set of rules is more easily mastered that golf.

As to the proposed revisions of the Rules of Golf, it is the first time in my memory that the USGA has made a concerted effort to do what the rule-making bodies in the other sports most typically do: treat like situations alike, and seek to remove judgement calls whenever possible.  Personally, I would have liked to have seen the USGA go even farther with the revision proposals and find a way to have a single rule for the various situations that arise with red, yellow, and white stakes, but it may be that the proposal to allow the use of red stakes without a water feature is an effort to do just that.

I am curious to hear your interpretation on "Traveling" in regard to the complexity of the Rules of Basketball. How about what constitutes a "Balk" in Baseball?

As for your points regarding hazards, my rules cover them rather succinctly. I simplify the options presented in the rules of golf. There is nothing compulsory about a free drop, nor is there a penalty situation not covered by playing the ball from the original spot. That's about as clear and concise and simple as we can get. So yes, my rules cover all your situations , it's just not in a way you find palatable - and that is the contradiction to the simplification crowd. The simplest course of action is already codified as an option.

Oh. Wait. That means you might shoot a 98 in lieu of your standard 94. Or it means you have to select the necessary set of tees for your game. Or you have to play around an obstruction. All of the above probably speed things along, too.

If you approach any situation in the game with the idea that you can only advance the ball with a club and that if you must touch your ball you add a stroke you'll figure it out, and quickly at that.

And that's the difference between the rules of golf, which have simple, clear, concise, and equitable options available and the other sports and games. Golf offers options which you may employ if you so chose. If you want simple, then choose the simplest option.

Kyle,
I'm sorry if I've offended you by attempting to discuss your post.  There seems to be a fair amount of sarcasm directed my way in the above reply, and I don't see the reason for that.  I guess I'm confused; I thought you were saying in the original post that you consider the Rules to already be simple and not in need of change, but in the above reply, it seems that you are advocating fewer options, at least in regards to hazards and OB.  What am I missing?

I'm not part of any "simplification crowd" when it comes to the Rules of Golf.  I play a LOT of golf, including a lot of low-level senior tournament golf, and I'm constantly amazed at how often something comes up that neither I nor any of my fellow competitors are 100% sure about.  It is just amazingly easy for experienced golfers who actually have a decent working knowledge of the Rules to be confused by a situation that confronts them during a round.  And fwiw, a four shot difference in my score matters to me; with no apologies, it matters A LOT!

The examples of traveling in basketball and the balk in baseball are apples and oranges to the golf rules.  Traveling is a VERY simple rule that is a very difficult judgement call for a referee when big, fast athletes are moving at high speed; I know of no analogy on the golf course.  Basketball coaches routinely go back over game film and use slo-mo and pause buttons to try to figure out whether or not the referee was correct, but the rule itself is quite simple. (Please don't tell me about the NBA!) The term "balk", on the other hand, is sort an umbrella term for a number of actions that a pitcher might take to deceive baserunners (only two of which come up regularly), and again, almost all involve a degree of judgement by an umpire that doesn't compare well to anything that I know of in the Rules of Golf.  But in any case, that there are complex rules in other sports doesn't tell me much about should or shouldn't happen to the Rules of Golf.

I find the proposed revisions to be very interesting, whether or not I agree with each one, and I'll be curious to see which ones actually make it into the Rules in 2019.  More that simplifying the Rules per se, I think these changes might be aimed at bringing the Rules more in line with the way golfers actually play the game outside of tournament play.

You picked one of the examples that I gave of things not covered by your base assumptions, namely the various options and penalties arising from red, yellow, and white stakes on a golf course.  This is what you wrote:
"There is nothing compulsory about a free drop, nor is there a penalty situation not covered by playing the ball from the original spot. That's about as clear and concise and simple as we can get."
Forgive me, but I don't know what this means.  Are you advocating only one sort of stake, and only one option?  If you are not, then how are different stakes, different options, and different penalties covered in your "rules".  There is good reason for red stakes vs. yellow stakes, which is why the options are different.  There is good reason to treat a ball that is out of bounds differently from a ball that is in a hazard, which is why the penalties are different.
 

So how do you propose to cover things like these without some complexity?

[Mike Sweeney]

Otherwise, we wouldn't need a spiral bound decision book on the Rules that covers approximately 1000 such situations.

That is Kyle's exact point. We don't need a spiral bound decision book with 1000 variables.


I remain consistent in the belief that the greens need to be protected. Yes, etiquette can cover 99% of play on the greens, but in tournament golf, people will not be so nice.

[Ken Moum]

While I agree with Kyle about his basic rules, it's clear that most of the folks on GCA aren't willing to give up all the complications added by the modern love of stroke play.  (FWIW, in match play it's possible to play with even fewer rules than Kyle suggests. I'll make a separate post about that.)


Anyway, in 1982 the USGA and Golf Digest worked together to create a set of rules that would fit on the back of a bag tag.  They called them the "Golden Rules."  I used to have one of the tags.

They are:

• Play the ball as it lies;
• Don’t move, bend, or break anything growing or fixed, except in fairly taking your stance or swing. Don’t press anything down;
• You may lift natural objects not fixed or growing, except in a water hazard or bunker. No penalty;
• Movable man-made objects may be moved. For immovable objects, you may take relief by dropping away from them within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, no nearer the hole, except in a water hazard or if the object defines out of bounds. In a bunker, you must drop in the bunker. No penalty.
• You may take relief from casual water, ground under repair, burrowing animal holes or casts, anywhere except in a water hazard. On the putting green, place 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. In a bunker, you must drop in the bunker. No penalty.
• In a water hazard or bunker, don’t touch the water or ground with your hand or club before the stroke.
• If you hit your ball into a water hazard and cannot find or play it, either drop behind the point where the ball last crossed the hazard margin or at the place where you played the shot. On the tee, you may tee the ball. 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, within two club-lengths of an equivalent distant from the hole on the opposite margin. One penalty stroke.
• When you hit your ball out of bounds or can’t find it after five minutes of searching, add a penalty stroke, goback and drop a ball at the place where you 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.
• 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. If you can’t play your ball from a water hazard, see Golden Rule No.7.
• You may repair ball marks and old hole plugs on the putting green that are on the line of your putt, but not spike marks.

If you can't get around using these rules, then you do indeed think golf needs to be more complicated than I do.

[Ken Moum]

Okay, it is possible and probably big, dirty fun to play match play with one rule.

Rule 1. You hit the ball without touching until it is in the hole

Decisions on Rule 1: Can I? No. you cannot.

If cannot play your ball, you lose the hole.

Now, if you think it's not possible to play by that way, understand that a gathering of folks who participated in the first golf discussion group, rec.sport.golf.

The gathering was called RSG Ohio and Match Play Madness was held in honor of C.B. MacDonald.

See.... http://matchplaymadness.com/mpm.txt

[Rick Lane]

That's does sound like dirty fun!   A couple buddies and I also started playing lately where you are no allowed to know any distances.   No sneaking peeks at distance plates in fairways, etc.   Walk to your ball and try to estimate distance.   Its great fun.   

[A.G._Crockett]

While I agree with Kyle about his basic rules, it's clear that most of the folks on GCA aren't willing to give up all the complications added by the modern love of stroke play.  (FWIW, in match play it's possible to play with even fewer rules than Kyle suggests. I'll make a separate post about that.)


Anyway, in 1982 the USGA and Golf Digest worked together to create a set of rules that would fit on the back of a bag tag.  They called them the "Golden Rules."  I used to have one of the tags.

They are:

• Play the ball as it lies;
• Don’t move, bend, or break anything growing or fixed, except in fairly taking your stance or swing. Don’t press anything down;
• You may lift natural objects not fixed or growing, except in a water hazard or bunker. No penalty;
• Movable man-made objects may be moved. For immovable objects, you may take relief by dropping away from them within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, no nearer the hole, except in a water hazard or if the object defines out of bounds. In a bunker, you must drop in the bunker. No penalty.
• You may take relief from casual water, ground under repair, burrowing animal holes or casts, anywhere except in a water hazard. On the putting green, place 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. In a bunker, you must drop in the bunker. No penalty.
• In a water hazard or bunker, don’t touch the water or ground with your hand or club before the stroke.
• If you hit your ball into a water hazard and cannot find or play it, either drop behind the point where the ball last crossed the hazard margin or at the place where you played the shot. On the tee, you may tee the ball. 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, within two club-lengths of an equivalent distant from the hole on the opposite margin. One penalty stroke.
• When you hit your ball out of bounds or can’t find it after five minutes of searching, add a penalty stroke, goback and drop a ball at the place where you 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.
• 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. If you can’t play your ball from a water hazard, see Golden Rule No.7.
• You may repair ball marks and old hole plugs on the putting green that are on the line of your putt, but not spike marks.

If you can't get around using these rules, then you do indeed think golf needs to be more complicated than I do.

You can of course "get around" using only those 10 rules.  Carried to it's illogical extreme, you can get around without ANY rules.  And maybe we should all agree that there are major differences between casual play and competitive play in regards to rules.

But the idea that the Decisions book makes golf and the Rules MORE complicated doesn't wash.  I am fairly confident that anybody who has played a fair amount of golf and played by the Rules, has come across a variety of situations that require clarification beyond each one of these 10 statements.

Is frost casual water?  What about snow in a bunker?  What about a spilled cup of ice in the fairway?  My ball hit the cart path and is scarred; can I replace it?  I want to take a drop outside the margin of the hazard, but the cart path is in my drop zone; what do I do?  I want to drop my ball away from the edge of the cart path, but stand on the path because that will put my ball in the best position; can I do that?  Is an area of crushed gravel used to enter and exit the fairway considered to be a cart path?  Our opponents left one ball on the green near the hole while the other player chipped up from off the green; is that ok?  I want hit my bogey putt away from the hole to get on the same line as my partner so he can see how his birdie putt will break; is THAT ok?

I could go on for the next few days, but you get the idea.

[Kyle Harris]

A.G. Crockett,

I re-read my post and my tone and word choice was certainly in poor taste. I'm sorry and you did not offend me in the least. In fact, I realized I forgot to respond to your thoughtful message from last week!

Your replies have helped me finally put into a concrete thought what had only been a nebulous idea about what truly is the difference between the Rules of Golf and rules for other games/sport. Perhaps it is that we take an epistemologically different view of how to handle the situations that arise on a golf course during the course of play.

On one hand we can confront a situation with the question: "How do the rules help or suggest we act in this situation?
On the other hand we can confront a situation with the question: "How can I play a stroke to act in this situation?"

The overall point here being that the choice is ultimately on the player. There are no outside agencies which compel behavior other than the choice of the player. If the player so chooses to seek relief, they may, but in doing so they are selecting a more complex action than by simply pulling a club and extracting the ball from whatever peril it may lay.

With my idea of not using the rules to advance the ball, as well as playing the course as one finds it, it should be intuitive infer that the ball shall be dropped within the nearest point of relief (namely, you've eliminated from influence the very thing from which you are relieving the ball) and no nearer the hole.

If the ball cannot be located, or is located off the golf course, it should be intuitive that the simplest, and most equitable, course of action is to replay from where the initial shot was played.

That's not terribly complex and it is completely codified within the rules as a whole.

I also got to thinking that perhaps much of the confusion with golf is the way in which we come to learn the game, as well as the time of out lives in which we learn the game, as compared to other sports. Children understand games like soccer, football, baseball, basketball, et. al. because they are very frequently learned at a young age when all learning is more fluid and skills are more easily picked up. Any American who has attempted to explain Baseball to a foreign national can certainly understand what I mean!

As a thought experience, imagine if you had picked up the game using my rules at an extremely young age while learning that the golfer should use strokes to maneuver the ball and not the rules. How much simpler would the actual procedures be to learn with the base understanding of my principles?

I suggest MUCH easier. Perhaps this is ultimately where the USGA has dropped the ball - by not creating opportunities for "pick-up" style Golf accessible to youth. 

[Kyle Harris]

As an aside I am largely supportive of the 2019 Proposed Revisions because of the introduction of the Penalty Area. I love the implicit different made between Bunkers and the Penalty Area and the freedom of the word hazard to apply to bunker.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As an aside I am largely supportive of the 2019 Proposed Revisions because of the introduction of the Penalty Area. I love the implicit different made between Bunkers and the Penalty Area and the freedom of the word hazard to apply to bunker.

I too am generally in favor of the 2019 proposed rules too. There are two that I don't like, and one of them is the flagstick rule one (you can putt from on the putting green and strike the flagstick in the hole without penalty). That's a terrible one.

I forget the second I dislike, so I either must not dislike it that much, or I've just forgotten. I'm leaning toward the former. It may have been that you don't have to announce intent to lift the ball. I think that's it. Announcing

There are a lot that I love, too, like a caddie not being able to help a player line up, the max hole score (for junior events in particular), the  3-minute search limit, etc.

Most people don't have to learn very many rules. The basics cover 90% of the situations you encounter. What annoys me is how little the PGA Tour players (or their caddies) know the Rules. Hideki should have absolutely been penalized this past weekend.

[Peter Pallotta]

I always listen to what AG says, on account of he’s smart.

My first thought was that golf is the most basic of games, the most child-like, the most elemental — ie hit a rock into a hole with a stick.

So you’d think that the rules would also be the simplest and most clear cut of all; but they’re not.

They’re not, I suppose, because children aren’t the ones making the rules. If they were you’d only have two possibilities - “hey, that’s cheating!” and “hey, that’s not fair!”

And it’d be an unquestioned fact that you could never, ever touch the rock with your hand. That would be cheating.

But if you had to touch it with your hand ‘cause you lost it or it went in the water, you’d get a 10 on that hole — ie the highest score possible. That would be fair.

Okay - if a car was coming you got to pick up your rock and move out of the way...but otherwise never!

 

[Sean_A]

Similar to Pietro, I think J Morrissett is a bright guy and I like his take on the rules and how to improve them.

The primary goal of this project is to simplify the Rules of Golf to make them more readily understandable. Today, we sense that most people are too intimidated by the Rules even to open the Rules book to look for an answer (which is a tremendous waste, given the two million or so copies of the Rules of Golf printed by the USGA every two years). We believe that the current Rules are a great deal easier to understand than the pre-1984 versions of the code; however, we believe that the desire by the R&A and USGA to be "fair" and to limit or reduce the severity of penalties has lead to an increase in complexity in the recent editions.

In order to simplify the Rules, we believe there will need to be significant compromises in principle for the sake of simplicity. These compromises will be in both directions, with some quite lenient (e.g., the elimination of dropping; the elimination of the distinction between water hazards and lateral water hazards) and some harsh (e.g., no relief under Rules 24-2 and 25-1 for intervention on the line of putt). The ultimate question will be whether the increased simplicity of the Rules will more than offset these philosophical losses.

Occasionally the Rules go to great lengths to address unlikely situations (e.g., Rule 25-1b(iv)). Many such provisions will be eliminated, with the occasional good break and bad break as the result. We believe that the overall goal of simplicity should be more important than the results in some unlikely and rare situations.

The goal of a simpler code should have a number of side-effects, such as a thinner Rules book and the need for fewer Decisions. Many people have pointed to the fact that there are more than 1200 Decisions as a sign that the Rules are too complicated; they may have a point. While we do not necessarily believe that shorter is always simpler (i.e., sometimes the effort to be concise can lead to confusion (e.g., the use of "otherwise")), we do believe that a simpler code should, overall, be shorter than the current one. Like it or not, the general public does associate length with complexity (hence the ignorant cries to return to the original 13 rules).

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOne.html

When we set out to rewrite the Rules of Golf to see how a simple code would look, we used the current Rules as the basis for our work. Having worked on part of the evolution of the current Rules during our time with the USGA, we're biased in that we think they are pretty darn good. We believed that there was a fair chance that our project would reveal that it would be undesirable in many cases to make drastic changes to the Rules because the philosophical compromises required would be too great (i.e., that a more complicated set of Rules that provided for desirable results would be preferable to a simpler code that yielded the occasional strange result.

Well, we were wrong. As we dug into the current Rules of Golf with an eye devoted to the single goal of simplification, we quickly realized that there are in fact many opportunities to simplify the code without dramatically changing the way the game is played. Many of the complications in the current code exist for the purpose of addressing situations at one or both ends of the extremes. For example, current Rule 26 provides for two additional relief procedures for a ball in a lateral water hazard. We believe that relatively few golfers know the difference in relief options for a water hazard (yellow stakes) and lateral water hazard (red stakes). The distinction exists mainly to protect the way certain holes are played (e.g., 12 and 15 at Augusta National, 17 at TPC-Sawgrass). To date, the argument against eliminating the distinction and, primarily, allowing a player to drop within two club-lengths of where his ball last crossed the hazard margin has been that the holes referenced (and holes similar to them) would play too differently. It would be an outrage, went the argument, to allow a player on the 12th at Augusta National whose ball clears the water hazard and rolls back into to it to be able to drop on the green side of the hazard, allowing him a good chance to get away with a bogey. Likewise, think how differently the island-green 17th at TPC-Sawgrass would play if a player whose ball last crossed the hazard margin at the green (e.g., with a tee shot that goes over the green) could drop on the fringe (or even the green itself if some cases) and two-putt for bogey. However, is the confusion among most golfers as to the relief options worth ensuring that these holes play the way they do? Sure, there are similar holes around the world, but they make up a very small percentage of the world's golf holes. We thought the reason for the distinction not to be strong enough to warrant the complication and confusion.

We must emphasize that several of the ideas contained in the draft of Code One are not original (e.g., the elimination of dropping, the elimination of the distinction between the two types of water hazards, the elimination of the ability to replace or repair a club that becomes damaged in the normal course of play). Over the years a number of ideas have been suggested for specific Rules, and we used the ones that we believed were positive changes towards the goal of simplification.

The elimination of dropping provides perhaps the best example of the debate towards a simpler code. The Rules of Golf have incorporated the concept of dropping a ball (e.g., when taking relief from a cart path) on the philosophical grounds that luck is, and should be, a part of the game. Unpredictable results (both good and bad) can occur when a ball is dropped, just as when a ball is struck. The R&A and USGA have liked that element of chance that dropping ensures. However, at what price? Consider the many complications that dropping introduces to the Rules: how is the ball to be dropped; when must it be re-dropped; when does a player keep dropping until the drop satisfies the Rule he is using; when must a player drop twice and then place? While we agree that luck should be part of the game, we believe that the value of significant simplification in this one area outweighs the philosophical reasoning behind it. Hence, the change (and good-bye to current Rule 20-2).

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Okay, it is possible and probably big, dirty fun to play match play with one rule.

Rule 1. You hit the ball without touching until it is in the hole

Decisions on Rule 1: Can I? No. you cannot.

If cannot play your ball, you lose the hole.

So what happens if both players lose their ball or hit it OOB?

[Mike Sweeney]

Okay, it is possible and probably big, dirty fun to play match play with one rule.

Rule 1. You hit the ball without touching until it is in the hole

Decisions on Rule 1: Can I? No. you cannot.

If cannot play your ball, you lose the hole.

So what happens if both players lose their ball or hit it OOB?

The hole is a push.

[Ken Moum]

Okay, it is possible and probably big, dirty fun to play match play with one rule.

Rule 1. You hit the ball without touching until it is in the hole

Decisions on Rule 1: Can I? No. you cannot.

If cannot play your ball, you lose the hole.

So what happens if both players lose their ball or hit it OOB?

The hole is a push.

Don't think so.  Simultaneous OB or lost ball are pretty rare.


Anyway, if your opponent hits one OB how dumb do you have to be to follow him?


Lost ball? It's your turn to play. Can't find the ball. You lose.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,


not a clue what a 'push' is.


Ken,


Simultaneous OB or lost ball maybe pretty rare but not everybody has the control over evert shot that you have Ken But the question stands how do you proceed if both players have lost their tee shot?

[James Bennett]

Jon

the hole would be halved.

James B