You understand it, right?
Printable View
Yes, but I count myself in the minority.
If making the Rules easier to follow for more people helps to grow the game (that's the assumption BTW) then why not do it?
Well, it may help grow "A Game", but IMHO, not "The Game".
"The Game" has changed throughout history. To all of a sudden think that it should not ever change again is not realistic.
And there's the rub. The current "keepers of the game" are closed to any talk of simplifying the rules to make them easier for the majority. The arguement will be made over and over again that the rules are in fact easy and if people would just take the time they would understand them. They take this stance even though the majority of people who golf say that the rules are too complicated for them.
And as such, this arguement will be had over and over again.
The Rules nuts will refer to the recreational golfers as people who play "some other game that resembles golf" and the recreational golfers will give the evil eye to the "rules weanies".
I'm not basing it on any real data, I'm just saying that would be the assumption for making the rules simpler. I have no hard data to back it up and I doubt anyone really does.
Expense is certainly a factor, but if you can get more people playing, that will only help.
"Abnormal ground condition" includes casual water, which can be considered quite commonplace in many climates.
As for what is a divot, I'm sure a suitable definition could be concocted.
Now, who decides what is a divot and if it is interfering with the stroke. Rules officials in the tournaments, golfer in the same group during casual play. Just like for everything else. I don't seem to recall anyone having problems letting golfers decide if a sprinkler is interfering with the stroke, why would divots be any different? Golfers are supposed to be honorable, so why such fear of trusting our judgment?
Anyway, this particular debate has been going on for many years now, with good arguments both ways, but the real problem with divots is that powers that be are too concerned with preserving the traditions of the game and require a very strong case to be made for them to budge. Perhaps if a couple of high profile tour pros lost a major because of landing in a divot things would change... but no, the pros are good enough, a lousy divot would never affect their play. It's just us poor saps who suffer, so chances of that particular rule changing is approaching zero.
I seriously doubt that changing the rules to make them easier to follow but increase everyone's average score by 10 strokes will help grow the game. In fact, I think it would have the exact opposite effect...
... and therein lies the problem. People SAY they want "simpler" rules, but when you dig deeper you find that what they REALLY want are "less punishing" rules.