QED: Golf Rules are not complicated compared to literally any other game

[Kyle Harris]

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-balk-a-necessary-rule-in-baseball

[Steve Burrows]

Your premise is slightly flawed given that the original rules of golf, written as 13 bullet points in 1744 (which are indeed uncomplicated), have ballooned into the 200 page bureaucratically constructed booklet that the USGA touts today. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Your premise is slightly flawed given that the original rules of golf, written as 13 bullet points in 1744 (which are indeed uncomplicated), have ballooned into the 200 page bureaucratically constructed booklet that the USGA touts today.

Have you seen the rules books for other sports?

Here’s the NHL’s, which clocks in at 229 full-size pages.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

And the NHL plays on uniform playing fields, has only one real form of play, etc.

[Thomas Dai]

I suggest the RoG do have something in common with the rules of other games ..... that not many participants know them or know them well let alone know them in totality.
atb

[Kyle Harris]

Your premise is slightly flawed given that the original rules of golf, written as 13 bullet points in 1744 (which are indeed uncomplicated), have ballooned into the 200 page bureaucratically constructed booklet that the USGA touts today.

There are more rules dictating what a pitcher may or may not do prior to actually throwing the ball than there are in all of golf. These are rules en situ -as many golf rules are- but are basically necessary to play the game equitably.


There is no rule in golf stating that a golf course MUST have a water hazard or OB.

[Kyle Harris]

Golf rules are only "complicated" by options, as well.


Any rule mandating or allowing a drop has the provision that you may return to the original spot and drop there.


There is nothing more simple and fair than that.


Most golfers just don't *like* it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

There aren't many rules in no holds barred fighting.
Only a couple more in submission only grappling.



The belt tube is funny - thinking of the third baseman being dragged to home plate.
Now would be a good time to insert some of Tom Paul's philosophy of rules threads.
 

[Kyle Harris]

There aren't many rules in no holds barred fighting.
Only a couple more in submission only grappling.



The belt tube is funny - thinking of the third baseman being dragged to home plate.
Now would be a good time to insert some of Tom Paul's philosophy of rules threads.

Not a bad thing to bump, IMO.


"Treating like situations alike" is so fundamentally simple and yet you never hear it.

[Kalen Braley]

I won't disagree with this premise when compared to say Football.


But sports like Soccer, Lacrosse, Basketball, etc...I would certainly disagree.

[Kyle Harris]

I won't disagree with this premise when compared to say Football.


But sports like Soccer, Lacrosse, Basketball, etc...I would certainly disagree.

I'd love to see a match in those where absolutely no calls were disputed.

[Kalen Braley]

I won't disagree with this premise when compared to say Football.


But sports like Soccer, Lacrosse, Basketball, etc...I would certainly disagree.

I'd love to see a match in those where absolutely no calls were disputed.

I can't argue that, but then I guess we'd have to define what you mean by "complicated".  Rules can be simple, even if open to different interpretation or a ref having a bad angle.


P.S.  I've been playing golf for over 2 decades and still feel novice level in terms of understanding all the rules and decisions....

[Lou_Duran]

"Treating like situations alike" is so fundamentally simple and yet you never hear it.

This only applies when a rule does not exist for the particular, specific situation.  The other part applicable to the quote is "in equity".  Both of these concepts are tied to fairness, and the rules, IMO, fall too far short of being fair or consistent.


I have been studying the rules regularly for the past several years and have come to the conclusion that they remain unnecessarily complicated (I only knew baseball and basketball 25-30+ years ago when I umpired and refereed; the rules for both, IMO, were much simpler, but the actual officiating was more difficult because judgement in real-time was involved often).


The changes that took effect in 2019 were positive on balance, but way too much remains confusing.  Exceptions are so numerous that they even confuse seasoned officials, and reading the rules carefully require so many "interpretations" that at times one is left with more questions than when he started.


If someone can explain to me why restoring a lie that has been altered by an outside influence after a ball has been lifted, but before it was replaced should be done differently than when the lie has been altered before it was lifted, I am all ears.  For your own amusement, read the Bunker rule on when you can rake a bunker after the ball is hit out of the bunker, but are sometimes subject to a penalty if the player chooses to take relief in the same bunker.  I did pretty well in school and my eyes get crossed sometimes trying to make sense out of successive clarifying bullet points seeming to contradict one another.
 

[Kalen Braley]

Lou,


I think that's a good point of distinction. 


The rules of golf as a body are far more numerous and complicated to fully understand, even if officiating basketball or baseball in real time presents its own difficulties in correctly assessing a sequence and making a split second ruling.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This only applies when a rule does not exist for the particular, specific situation.  The other part applicable to the quote is "in equity".  Both of these concepts are tied to fairness, and the rules, IMO, fall too far short of being fair or consistent.

I disagree, but may be using a different definition of "fair."

If everyone is subject to the same rules, the competition is "fair."

The changes that took effect in 2019 were positive on balance, but way too much remains confusing.

I have yet to find someone who can list a few good examples of this without either changing the way the game is played or without adding a list of exceptions or special cases where the simplified rule gets more complex again.

Exceptions are so numerous that they even confuse seasoned officials, and reading the rules carefully require so many "interpretations" that at times one is left with more questions than when he started.

I think this can be true in virtually all sports. The balk rule isn't all that simple. Offsides in the NHL sounds simple, but is open to interpretation because a skater, if controlling the puck, can cross the line skating backward (and there are better examples than that within hockey). The list goes on.

[Peter Flory]

They should add the balk rule to golf.

[Sean_A]

This only applies when a rule does not exist for the particular, specific situation.  The other part applicable to the quote is "in equity".  Both of these concepts are tied to fairness, and the rules, IMO, fall too far short of being fair or consistent.

I disagree, but may be using a different definition of "fair."

If everyone is subject to the same rules, the competition is "fair."

The changes that took effect in 2019 were positive on balance, but way too much remains confusing.

I have yet to find someone who can list a few good examples of this without either changing the way the game is played or without adding a list of exceptions or special cases where the simplified rule gets more complex again.

Exceptions are so numerous that they even confuse seasoned officials, and reading the rules carefully require so many "interpretations" that at times one is left with more questions than when he started.

I think this can be true in virtually all sports. The balk rule isn't all that simple. Offsides in the NHL sounds simple, but is open to interpretation because a skater, if controlling the puck, can cross the line skating backward (and there are better examples than that within hockey). The list goes on.

Hockey has recently made the offsides more complicated and more difficult to judge in the hope of generating more offense. So much of what the NHL does in terms of rules is not about the game, but about selling tickets. Golf could use this approach in a limited way to make the rules less complicated. As mentioned previously by someone else, if folks don't have a very solid grip on the rules after playing for many years, it suggests a rules issue. I feel like I understand Hockey rules much better than golf and I haven't played properly organized hockey in almost 40 years.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Complications in golf are strictly the choice of players or golf architects.


Again, there is no dictum that a player must drop a ball in the most beneficial manner to them. Go back to the original spot and drop there.


Play golf courses that don't allow for complicated drop situations.


Not true for any other game. True for most sports. And there is a *huge* difference.

[A.G._Crockett]

To me, the key difference isn't the size of the rulebooks or the number of rules.  To me, it's the frequency with which things occur that you just don't know the rule for it.  And golf leads the planet in that, hands down.  That may be a function of the size of the playing field and the lack of uniformity and the different ways you can compete, and I don't mean it necessarily as any sort of a value judgement about the Rules of Golf vs. those of any other sport.

But I can't remember very many times (if any?) in 39 years of coaching basketball where two coaches and either two or three officials were all confused about a rule.  The balk aside, same with baseball, and what is or is not a catch aside, same with football.  By contrast, it happens ALL THE TIME in golf.

When I started coaching HS golf late in my career, I sat down the pro at my club to pick his brain.  He had been a college AA, and still played competitively, and the very first thing he said was that I should tell my players to always play two balls if there was a Rules question because in the heat of the moment they would get it wrong way too often.

And just take THAT as an example; is there any other sport that allows something like playing two balls at once and then getting a decision later about which one will count?  (FWIW, I didn't know until last year that you can't play two ball in match play; only in stroke play.  And I've been playing competitive golf, both formats, for a long time!)

One other thing:  In the rules of basketball, a guiding principle is to treat like situations alike as far as possible.  Without giving an example of that from basketball, that is a principle that is, at times, mysteriously missing in the Rules of Golf.  One example is the difference between how a ball lost in a hazard, vs. a ball that is just "lost", and then what happens if each ball is subsequently found after a second ball has been played.  Nobody will EVER be able to explain why those have to be treated differently, and the difference makes the Rules far, far more complex.  And when the USGA wanders (and blunders, IMO) into legislating methods of holding and swinging the club, the idea of treating like situations alike flies out the window.

Most of you know, I'm sure, that when Snead started putting croquet style, the rule was quickly made to make it a violation to straddle or stand on the line of a putt.  But do you know that the line of the putt stops at the hole, and did you know that you are allowed to straddle the line of play and play a shot croquet style when you are NOT on the green?  All of this comes out of Bobby Jones having his sensibilities offended by what Snead was doing, and telling Joe Dey he wanted it stopped.  And so it was.  If you can come up with a similar story from another sport, I'd love to hear it.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,

Just terrific post!  +100 Likes from me! 

P.S.  The only time I see this happen is in Football, especially when its like a kick off at the end of the half and there is a penalty as time expires and the guy fumbles or something.  But these are pretty rare, once per season kind of things where i'm like "I learned something new today".

But golf?  ForgetAboutIt...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Golf could use this approach in a limited way to make the rules less complicated. As mentioned previously by someone else, if folks don't have a very solid grip on the rules after playing for many years, it suggests a rules issue.

I must live in a different world, because between you and AG… I don't know. I think that most people are capable of getting through the majority of their rounds without having a rules issue they can't pretty quickly solve.

I've officiated events, too, and rarely get called in or stumped - most of the time you are called in, it's just for a player who knows the rule but wants the "cover" of an official. Or they want to try to see if they can talk him or her into something.

To me, it's the frequency with which things occur that you just don't know the rule for it.

How often does this really happen? I haven't always been a rules geek, and before I was an official, I would go several months playing multiple times per week without running into situations where we "don't know the rule for it." It's generally not that difficult to find the Rule quickly in the Rules book.

By contrast, it happens ALL THE TIME in golf.

Wow. Again, my experiences are very different than yours and Sean's.

And just take THAT as an example; is there any other sport that allows something like playing two balls at once and then getting a decision later about which one will count?

Comparisons to other sports don't really tend to fly because in other sports, there's another team or player or something and the game or competition or match doesn't move on until something is decided. Golf doesn't work that way. That's why penalties can be assessed later on, too.

One other thing:  In the rules of basketball, a guiding principle is to treat like situations alike as far as possible.  Without giving an example of that from basketball, that is a principle that is, at times, mysteriously missing in the Rules of Golf.

It is not missing from the Rules of Golf at all. "Equity" is in the Rules of Golf, and it's a core principle.

One example is the difference between how a ball lost in a hazard, vs. a ball that is just "lost", and then what happens if each ball is subsequently found after a second ball has been played. Nobody will EVER be able to explain why those have to be treated differently

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly here, but all of these situations can be explained.

And when the USGA wanders (and blunders, IMO) into legislating methods of holding and swinging the club, the idea of treating like situations alike flies out the window.

Oy. First of all, it's not just the USGA. The R&A work with the USGA to oversee all of the Rules.

Second, I'm not sure how you feel that "how you hold and swing the club" is at odds with equity.

Most of you know, I'm sure, that when Snead started putting croquet style, the rule was quickly made to make it a violation to straddle or stand on the line of a putt.  But do you know that the line of the putt stops at the hole, and did you know that you are allowed to straddle the line of play and play a shot croquet style when you are NOT on the green?

You are not allowed to straddle the line of play when making a stroke anywhere on the course.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=10

Rule 10 is not putting-green-specific. Even if it was limited to just the putting green, this wouldn't be a matter of equity - the course has different "areas." So the situations are not "like".

In 2018, this restriction was under Rule 16, which governed the putting green, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone stand astride the line of play when making any other sort of stroke anywhere. You'd be awfully limited in how far back or forward you could swing in one direction, for one thing…

You can mark and lift and clean your ball on the putting green, but are limited in doing this in the fairway or rough. Why? Because they're in different areas. This isn't a break-down in "equity."

Edit to add this:


This is from the "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf," a fairly important (and brief) booklet originally written by Richard S. Tufts.

I'm happy to discuss some of these things offline, AG.

[Sean_A]

Erik

I agree that most disputes are solved fairly quickly. It's the fact there are so many disputes which is disturbing. I would also say that many disputes are not necessarily ruled on correctly even if they are quickly resolved. A lot of players aren't willing to argue over what in the big scheme of life is stupid shit. They simply move on. I have had a few situations arise in the past few years when I didn't want to muck up what to me is a recreational game. This is also why I am not willing to invest the time to properly learn the rules. Golf is celebrated for self policing, but this is a double edge sword if folks don't know how to rule in unusual circumstances. The different penalties depending on match and medal play is a particular problem.

Rules heads usually stand by the rules and for the most part they are right. However, this shouldn't infer that the rules can't be simplified and the language more clearly written. I really like what J Morrissett and his mate put together a few years ago. Makes total sense to me as a model for a new approach to the rules.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Erik,
I stand corrected on straddling the line of play from off the putting green; that is a 2019 change and I missed it.  But that it only took half a century for the rule to be standardized is instructive, I think.  I will give the rule making bodies credit for getting it right; I'll hang onto the example because of the time lag of 50 years that it took them to do it, plus the motivation for the straddling rule in the first place.  (And whether or not it is an efficient way to make a stroke from off of the green isn't the point, is it?)


Here's an example of how the issue of a ball presumed to be possibly lost is treated differently in the Rules:

Players A and B are playing a course that neither is familiar with, and are teeing off on a hole with a blind landing area, with red penalty area stakes down the left side and white OB stakes down the right side.  Player A pulls his tee shot left, possibly into the penalty area.  Player B pushes his tee shot right, possibly OB, announces that he will play a provisional ball, and does so.  Neither player was able to see his ball land or come to rest.  Both, obviously, have hit poor shots.

The players move forward, and they reach the area where they agree that Player A's ball is likely to have entered the penalty area, but they are unable to find the ball, either in or out of the penalty area.  Player A then drops a ball outside the margin of the penalty area under the Rules, and plays a stroke with that ball.  Moving to the area where they believe Player B's original ball to have been, they are again unable to find the original ball, and Player B proceeds to his provisional ball and plays another shot with that ball. 


The two players then walk forward, and BOTH find their original balls that they hit from the tee.  Both balls are in bounds, and well forward of where each player AND his fellow competitor believed his original ball to have been AND from where each had played a second ball.  Two bad tee shots, two second balls played, two original balls found ahead of where the second ball had been played from, so the two players should be in the same situation, right?  That would be "fair", and, more to the point, SIMPLE, no?


The punchline, of course, is that Player B can now play the original ball without penalty, and pick up the provisional, while Player A is hosed, at least relative to Player A.  I understand full well, and agree with, the guiding principle that a player should never be able to choose between two balls, but that doesn't present a problem here if you simply treat the two original balls EXACTLY the same.   This is just needless complexity, with no real point.


I know of nothing similar in any other sport that I've ever played or watched.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I agree that most disputes are solved fairly quickly. It's the fact there are so many disputes which is disturbing.

I don't really see all that many disputes. Maybe I tended to play more serious golf with better players, and because of that we knew the rules pretty well… but I imagine many here are also as good or much better than me, and played with better players as well. So I'm still not seeing the same thing…

This is also why I am not willing to invest the time to properly learn the rules.

Why not, even if it's just for your own satisfaction and knowledge? A good plan is this: read rule 1 on April 1, rule 2 on April 2, etc. On the other days of the month after you run out of rules, read the Definitions and the Appendix. It takes a few minutes a day.

The different penalties depending on match and medal play is a particular problem.

These differences were minimized with the 2019 rules, too.

I really like what J Morrissett and his mate put together a few years ago. Makes total sense to me as a model for a new approach to the rules.

It was a model for the 2019 Rules. But even Code One is 65 pages of 8.5 x 11 with no graphics, page breaks for new chapters, etc.

I stand corrected on straddling the line of play from off the putting green; that is a 2019 change and I missed it.  But that it only took half a century for the rule to be standardized is instructive, I think.

I don't think it was an "issue" off the putting green. Who was out there trying to make swings while straddling the line? And what would have been "wrong" about all of that?

(And whether or not it is an efficient way to make a stroke from off of the green isn't the point, is it?)

It certainly explains (to me at least) why it wasn't pressing to move this restriction into the general rule for making a stroke. They could have done that at any time; they just didn't see the need to do so.

That would be "fair", and, more to the point, SIMPLE, no?

No, and there are reasons for this. I understand how it may not make sense to you, but one ball is a provisional, while the other ball is the ball "in play." And the reasons for that distinction make sense.

Also, if three minutes of searching had passed, both balls (the provisional and the dropped ball) are in play.

Also, we're blowing past your big point about how basketball has equity but golf does not? Even though it's a guiding, working principle in golf?

IMO, AG, you're in this valley between knowing enough to find some things confusing and not quite knowing enough to understand the reasons and history and logic behind those things. Most golfers are probably well behind where you are - they know the basics but couldn't have come up with some of the examples you have provided.

I'm of the opinion that if you know the basics, then you're good 95% of the time, and if you know how to look up things pretty quickly, you're good for the majority of the remaining 5% of the time. And that's not every shot, that's just "when a rules situation arises."

[SL_Solow]

I am closer to Erik on this one.  By way of introduction, during my misspent youth I earned spending money as a basketball referee, quitting only when the time demands of a law practice made scheduling impossible.  I also umpired baseball.  For the last 20 years I have been involved in officiating amateur golf tournaments although I concede that there are many who are more expert than I.  That said, I have a few observations.


First, we should distinguish between formal competitions with officials and "friendly " games.  We tend to compare golf as we play it to basketball, baseball etc. as we see it played by the pros.  Watch a pick up basketball game sometime.  Observe all of the rules that are honored in the breach.  Watch the arguments over fouls, travelling, charge/blocks and the like.  Is this much different than some of our complaints about our golf games.  The disputes/questions on the golf course are usually quieter.


Rules changes are not confined to golf nor are changes in reaction to particular players.  Basketball created the goal tending rule in reaction to players like Russell and Chamberlain coming along and altering the game.  The lane was widened because players like Wilt could straddle it negating the 3 second rule.  The NBA created the 24 second rule, spearheded by Dan Biasone of the Syracuse Nats in the early 50's.  Colleges adopted it later.  The "Euro step" was deemed OK changing travelling as we knew it. The 10 second line was reduced to 8.  The NBA first outlawed the zone and then reinstated it.


Baseball had many rules changes post Black Sox along with introducing the lively ball.  Remember the legal spit ball, emery ball, shine ball?  I don't except to see various players use them illegally.  Just this year, if we play, MLB is requiring relief pitchers to face 3 batters unless they first end an inning.  Wait to see whether they limit shifts in the future.


I agree with Lou that the rules of basketball are less complicated but the game is more difficult to officiate due to the need to make split second judgement calls.  Similarly, umpiring, particularly behind the plate presents significant issues.


The hardest part about golf is that, unlike the other sports, the variety of playing surfaces, the vastness of the field, and the multitude of situations requires flexibility in the rules.  Much like judicial interpretation of statutes, unique factual situations arise which leads to decisions which take on the character of precedent if they are well thought out.


I don't pretend that the Rules of Golf are easy but most rules books are not simple either.  When I played tournament tennis I used to carry a rule book in my bag and had to use it, even though the tennis rules are quite simple.  The rules test in Golf is far more difficult than actually officiating because when you work a tournament you have the book and the ability to ask for help when you need it.  That is a significant difference from the other games.

[Pete_Pittock]

Pretty sure that "equity" is no longer in the Rules of Golf.