"Are Rules Made to be Broken?"

[BC MIST]

There has naturally been an increased focus on the severity of the Rules of Golf following a number of high profile situations over the past few weeks. These include; S.Korean LPGA players Shi Hyun Ahn and Ilmi Chun (both disqualified for playing each other’s balls on the 18th fairway, putting out with the wrong balls and signing their cards), Jim Furyk (disqualified from The Barclays for missing his tee time at the preceding pro-am*), Juli Inkster (use of a swing aid during her round), Dustin Johnson (grounding his club in a bunker and also asking spectators to block the sunlight over his ball), Sarah Brown (wrongly disqualified having been accused of using non-conforming clubs), Mark Calcavecchia (lifting his provisional ball when it was the ball in play), and Robert Rock (signing for transposed hole scores on the score card he returned). There appears to be mounting criticism that the Rules, governed by the USGA and R&A around the world, have become too numerous, too draconian and too complicated.

Why is it that a large number of Joe or Josephine Publics suppose that rules, not just the Rules of Golf, are primarily made for others and don’t really apply to themselves? Cases in point are exceeding speed limits, parking in restricted areas, incomplete income disclosure on tax returns, exaggerated expense claims and using a mobile phone in the Clubhouse. In golf, it seems that every time we hear of a player being penalised for an infraction of a Rule, a typical reaction is that the officials should have turned a blind eye to it. This is even more obvious if the breach has been reported by a television viewer or on-course spectator, which some claim is unfair, as it means that the more well-known players, who appear on our televisions most regularly, are being scrutinised more closely than the outsiders. I take a different view in that I want every breach of the Rules to be fairly penalised, either by the player calling it upon themselves, which I am pleased to say regularly happens, or by a fellow competitor or observer bringing it to the player/officials attention. Put it this way, I have never got close to winning the Captain’s prize at my Club, but if by some miracle I was to come second and then find out that the winner had breached a Rule and had not been penalised, I would probably be apoplectic. Now this may seem an extreme example, but in my mind, exactly the same principle applies whether the avoidance of a penalty incurred affects the winning of the PGA Championship, as it might have done with Dustin Johnson, or the result of a $2 dollar wager between two hackers. The only way to fairly compete in any sport or game is for the players to be playing to the same Rules. There has to be a level playing field.

So, why are the there so many Rules of Golf and why are they so convoluted? Consider that they have evolved over a period of over 250 years and far from being the creation of a few blue blazers in the Royal & Ancient Clubhouse at St. Andrews they amalgamate the combined experiences of around 140 national affiliated organisations, who in turn reflect the experiences of the Clubs and their members that they represent. The procedure is that if a Golf Committee anywhere in the world has any doubt about a ruling, then a representative of that Committee can submit written details to the USGA (United States and Mexico) or the R&A (anywhere else in the world). These Ruling Bodies receive about 3,000 such requests every year. Naturally, most rulings can be made from the current Rules of Golf or Decisions on the Rules of Golf. However, when a new situation arises, then it will be referred to the Rules of Golf Committee who meet twice a year to discuss any revisions that may be required. After consultation with amateur and professional golfing bodies worldwide revisions may be made to the Decisions, which are published every two years, and/or to the Rules of Golf, which are published every four years. The large number of the Rules and Decisions is therefore a result of the need to provide consistent rulings on any possible situation that may possibly occur, regardless of geographical location, climate, topography, or any outside influences that could pertain.

If you don’t accept the Rules of Golf as enforced by the USGA and R&A then whose Rules are you going to use and just as importantly, who are you going to play with? It may be convenient for a regular flight of four players to play to their own ‘casual’ rules, but as soon as they want to play a little more competitively they are going to run into trouble. If you are not playing by all the Rules of Golf, no matter how silly they may appear to you, you are not playing golf.

Finally, let me emphasise some of the many positives that have arisen due to the strict way in which the Rules of Golf are applied;

There is one unified set of Rules that applies to every official golf competition worldwide.
The game is self-regulated in that players are responsible for knowing the Rules (Rule 6-1) and call any penalties incurred on themselves.
The large majority of golf rounds are played without the presence of referees, umpires or officials.
In addition to the Rules of Golf there are well-defined matters of etiquette, as a result of which most games are played in a truly sporting manner
The practice of ‘sledging’ (verbal insults or intimidation of an opponent) is unheard of in golf.
Of all sports, golf is recognised as the one where players are expected to exercise the highest level of integrity.
No Rules, no knowledge; know Rules, know knowledge.

[mpare]

Thoughtful Blog piece by Barry Rhodes.

[LobWedge]

Excellent piece.

Further to the Ahn/Chun incident, there's an interesting theory going around that they actually knew they had breached the rule and conspired to say nothing, and informed their respective caddies to do the same. Apparently it came out when one of the caddies mentioned the "orders" to another of his peers in the same group...

[DenisO]

Wait a second, you're not allowed using your cellphone in the clubhouse?

[corchard]

Interesting discussion. The ISAF (International Sailing Association Federation) define the Racing Rules of Sailing based on maritime law which is 500 years old They are based on the basic principal of do not collide (similarly to play the ball as it lies) and for the most part are self regulationg during races with disputes going to the commitee after the race. They spent a decade simplifying the rules and with some success allow a beginner to race in competition without spending spending hours pouring over rules and decisions. In a lot of cases tradition and convention were thrown out the window to achieve this goal.

Rules makers in golf are currently focussing on clarity, not simplicity for beginners simplicity in play.

[Sakuraba]

I really wish the governing bodies would radically simplify the rules of golf. As they are now, they are much too complicated for an average golfer to understand. Why do we need 3 different colours of stakes? And so many different options for dropping, for lost balls, and lost where? for provisional balls? Why relief from some obstructions and not others? If its is to preserve the integrity of the game or the field, then make them tougher. No relief at all, anywhere. No such thing as a drop: you rehit. You play it as it lies. If the rules were radically simplified, they would be easier for everyone to follow, and would be much more likely to be followed. I'm sure the governing bodies are trying to achieve simplification all the time, but with more and more decisions and rules being churned out over time, its not happening.

[jeffc]

I really wish the governing bodies would radically simplify the rules of golf. As they are now, they are much too complicated for an average golfer to understand. Why do we need 3 different colours of stakes? And so many different options for dropping, for lost balls, and lost where? for provisional balls? Why relief from some obstructions and not others? If its is to preserve the integrity of the game or the field, then make them tougher. No relief at all, anywhere. No such thing as a drop: you rehit. You play it as it lies. If the rules were radically simplified, they would be easier for everyone to follow, and would be much more likely to be followed. I'm sure the governing bodies are trying to achieve simplification all the time, but with more and more decisions and rules being churned out over time, its not happening.

i'd agree, though the best investment I have made is in the iphone USGA rules app. I can search a rule and get a result in second with all the decisions and options.

[BC MIST]

I really wish the governing bodies would radically simplify the rules of golf. As they are now, they are much too complicated for an average golfer to understand. Why do we need 3 different colours of stakes? And so many different options for dropping, for lost balls, and lost where? for provisional balls? Why relief from some obstructions and not others? If its is to preserve the integrity of the game or the field, then make them tougher. No relief at all, anywhere. No such thing as a drop: you rehit. You play it as it lies. If the rules were radically simplified, they would be easier for everyone to follow, and would be much more likely to be followed. I'm sure the governing bodies are trying to achieve simplification all the time, but with more and more decisions and rules being churned out over time, its not happening.

If a golf course merely consisted of putting greens, fairway and rough, and hazards, then perhaps some simplification could be achieved. However, man has added automated sprinkler systems, hot dog stands, hole signs, benches for comfort, paved cart paths and so on. Denying relief from these would often make playing a stroke impossible. Similarly, a ball lying in 6" of water after heavy rains, or in an area of the course under construction could also be impossible to play, hence relief rules. If my ball lands up in a tree from which a shot is impossible, applying your "No relief at all, anywhere," means the round is over.

The basic rules regarding water hazards, boundaries/lost ball, unplayable ball and relief from obstructions ARE already very simple. From officiating experience, 95%+ of my rulings involve these. Rarely, exceptional things happen that are not covered by the basic rules and that is why there are many decisions written to cover these exceptions. A fox stealing your ball, a fan bats a player's bouncing ball into a hazard and a player placing the flagstick just beyond the hole to be used as a back stop are just three simple example of the many unusual things that can happen during a round that must be dealt with by the rules/decisions.

Perhaps more golfers would play by the rules, if they just read the rule book, or if they attended a 90 minute rules seminar. Having given a few, the participants indicated that they learned a lot. However, with Gerry, having offered seminars to our male members, only a handful indicated an interest, which perhaps indicates that the problem may be attitude, not the complexity of the rules.

[Sakuraba]

An excellent reply BC, and of course you're right.
I have an analytical mind and a legal background, so I actually quite enjoy the intricacies and the interpretation of the rules & the decisions, but I do see that most golfers are unaware of most rules.
How do we get more golfers interested in the rules I wonder?

[Kilroy]

Reasoning for not bothering to learn the rules...

1. The real rules are for tournament play. "I wouldn't do that in a tournament but in a friendly round it's OK"
2. They are too complicated to learn.
3. They are too harsh.
4. Some people will depend on the most knowlegeable player in the group and make no effort to learn themselves.
5. Some prefer to play a simpler version of golf with rules for their group that may include things like a limited number of mulligans per nine and so on.
6. Some prefer to remain in the dark. It gives them more options when it comes to being lenient with themselves and friends. That way they can use the "Nicest point of relief"
7. Those who follow all the rules are anal vidictive people who like to slap penalties on friends. Nobody wants to be that guy.
8. Following the rules can make the game too confrontational. "We're here to have fun."
9. It makes the game too slow with all the deciding where to drop and measuring with clubs etc.
10. I refuse to return to the tee, send you back to the tee, or wait while the guy in front of me returns to the tee.

[jvincent]

I've stayed out of this thread long enough.....................

I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on the Rules and have made the comment in the past that I believe they could in fact be simplified.

A lot of the current complexity comes from the fact that the Rules try, IMHO, to maintain a certain amount of equity for situations where they should not.

This leads to the situations where there is confusion about when free relief is or isn't allowed, etc.

I honestly believe that it would be possible to create a simpler set of rules however it would almost certainly mean that certain situations where free relief is currently available would be gone. This would be the biggest barrier to making the changes. I'm looking squarely at the "temporary immovable obstruction" rule here as a concrete example.

I'm also pretty sure that I would limit the number of options available under situations such as a ball lost in hazard, etc.

[LobWedge]

I've stayed out of this thread long enough.....................

I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on the Rules and have made the comment in the past that I believe they could in fact be simplified.

A lot of the current complexity comes from the fact that the Rules try, IMHO, to maintain a certain amount of equity for situations where they should not.

This leads to the situations where there is confusion about when free relief is or isn't allowed, etc.

I honestly believe that it would be possible to create a simpler set of rules however it would almost certainly mean that certain situations where free relief is currently available would be gone. This would be the biggest barrier to making the changes. I'm looking squarely at the "temporary immovable obstruction" rule here as a concrete example.

I'm also pretty sure that I would limit the number of options available under situations such as a ball lost in hazard, etc.

TIO's are in the Appendix under Local Rules, not in the main Rules of Golf, and are only used under special circumstances.

[jvincent]

Don't worry, I'm would go after normal immovable obstructions too.

That is part of the complexity/confusion. People see the guys on tour getting relief from grandstands, etc. and wonder why they can't get relief from other things. Again, this is a good example of the Rules trying to be "equitable" where IMHO they don't need to be.

[LobWedge]

Don't worry, I'm would go after normal immovable obstructions too.

That is part of the complexity/confusion. People see the guys on tour getting relief from grandstands, etc. and wonder why they can't get relief from other things. Again, this is a good example of the Rules trying to be "equitable" where IMHO they don't need to be.

You still get relief from immovable and movable obstructions too, unless they're declared to be an integral part of the course.

[jvincent]

You still get relief from immovable and movable obstructions too

Not in my simplified rules you don't.

[LobWedge]

Why should you not get relief from an unnatural object?

p.s. In your world of no relief from obstructions, what would there be to stop golf course builders from paving everything in sight? It would sure cut down on maintenance costs...

[jeffc]

personally, I would ban the ability of people outside your group looking for your ball. If you compare the professionals to the average Joe, there is no way it is equitable to have hundreds of fans, their caddie, plus several marshes watching where your ball goes (not to mention television cameras). The best I get is a couple of playing companions helping me look. If I hit it into the woods I am lucky to find it 50% of the time. The pros almost never lose a ball. Equitable? I think not.

[mpare]

The fact that no one would pay to play such a course would deter any course builder from even contemplating building an ashphalt jungle. If there's one thing that speaks louder than the rules, it's making or losing money.

Why should you not get relief from an unnatural object?

p.s. In your world of no relief from obstructions, what would there be to stop golf course builders from paving everything in sight? It would sure cut down on maintenance costs...

[LobWedge]

personally, I would ban the ability of people outside your group looking for your ball. If you compare the professionals to the average Joe, there is no way it is equitable to have hundreds of fans, their caddie, plus several marshes watching where your ball goes (not to mention television cameras). The best I get is a couple of playing companions helping me look. If I hit it into the woods I am lucky to find it 50% of the time. The pros almost never lose a ball. Equitable? I think not.

What does this have to do with the Rules?

Works both ways Jeff. Sometimes they don't want the ball to be found.

If you want more "helpers", play better golf.

[jvincent]

Why should you not get relief from an unnatural object?

p.s. In your world of no relief from obstructions, what would there be to stop golf course builders from paving everything in sight? It would sure cut down on maintenance costs...

Why should you get relief?

The cart path, pump shed, wall was there when you teed your ball up. Just don't hit it there. Every bunker I have hit into in Ottawa was created by the golf course designer. There is nothing natural about them so why should the paths be any different?

You know that nobody will be paving over the golf courses so that arguement is just clouding the issue.

My premise for simplification is that if you reduce the number of exceptions/special conditions, the rules become simpler. If you don't like your lie on the cartpath or behind the shed, then you have the option of taking an unplayable, under penalty of one stroke, subject to the conditions of my simplified unplayable rule.

[LobWedge]

The fact that no one would pay to play such a course would deter any course builder from even contemplating building an ashphalt jungle. If there's one thing that speaks louder than the rules, it's making or losing money.

I wouldn't pay to play a game where I couldn't get relief from objects that were put on the course to serve some other purpose than to do with the playing of the game.

Remember, when golf was created, there weren't things like clubhouses, parking lots, practice ranges, paved cart paths, carts, sprinkler heads, drainage grates, sprinkler control boxes, pump houses, shelters, half-way houses...

These are all objects that were brought to the course later on.

[LobWedge]

Why should you get relief?

The cart path, pump shed, wall was there when you teed your ball up. Just don't hit it there. Every bunker I have hit into in Ottawa was created by the golf course designer. There is nothing natural about them so why should the paths be any different?

You know that nobody will be paving over the golf courses so that arguement is just clouding the issue.

My premise for simplification is that if you reduce the number of exceptions/special conditions, the rules become simpler. If you don't like your lie on the cartpath or behind the shed, then you have the option of taking an unplayable, under penalty of one stroke, subject to the conditions of my simplified unplayable rule.

Okay, so instead of taking one clublength relief (or not), you can take 2 club lengths, drop as far back as you want along the line between the point where the ball lay and the hole, or go back to where you played your previous stroke from. Yeah, much simpler (and faster)

[jvincent]

You are prejudging my unplayable rule. And nobody said anything about simplified Rules being faster.

You know all the confusion about relief (what side, which club to use, making sure to take full relief, etc) that exists. If the rule were simply play it as it lies or take an unplayable how is that not simpler?

Let's just say that the unplayable options are replay from the previous spot or two club lengths not closer to the hole. There is no more confusion about whether you have take full relief or not you just measure and drop. Or walk back and drop. If you want to drop from a bunker into the fairway that is cool. Or from a cartpath into a bunker that is also good.

You can't argue that it isn't simpler to understand. Notice that I didn't say it was more fair or resulted in faster play.

[BC MIST]

The cart path, pump shed, wall was there when you teed your ball up. Just don't hit it there. Every bunker I have hit into in Ottawa was created by the golf course designer.

But so were putting greens, teeing grounds, fairway/rough and to some extent water hazards. Like a baseball diamond, a hockey ice surface and a football field, they make up the playing field of the game, all of which are "natural," for golf.

How would you simplify:
1. "Lost ball," ball out of bounds"
2. Water hazards.
3. Ball lying in "abnormal ground conditions."
4. Unplayable ball
5. Playing a "wrong ball."
and so on, without making it either easier or more difficult to score?

[jvincent]

without making it either easier or more difficult to score?

I never said it would either be easier or more difficult. It will simply be what it is.

As I said earlier, the concept of trying to make things equitable is what leads to the confusion/complexity.

I'm not saying all of the rules are overly complex. But some of them are and could be simplified.

The fact that simplifying certain rules would result in either an advantage or disadvantage depending on the specifics of the situation is an orthogonal arguement.

[Kilroy]

Sweeping rule simplification would definately affect scores. Some would advocate making it easier to score by making the pesky penaltys and undesireable relief options less penal. Others would want to remove all relief which may result in situations that cause astronomical scores.

[jvincent]

And that is why the Rules will never change substantially.

People want to have their cake (simpler rules) and eat it too (don't take away my free relief!).

[LobWedge]

And that is why the Rules will never change substantially.

People want to have their cake (simpler rules) and eat it too (don't take away my free relief!).

And they should never change substantially. The fact that the rules seem complex to some is because they don't take the time to understand them. It's not the fault of those who make them, it's the fault of lazy people who don't want to bother.

If you want a better understanding of the rules, start by reading and learning the definitions. You'll be much further ahead. There's a reason they're at the front of the book.

[jvincent]

And that's the attitude that pushes a lot of people away from following the rules.

There is nothing sacred about the rules of golf. Remember the stymie? That was a substantial change. I'm not a rules historian so I can't go back and cite all the various changes.

I know the rules better than a lot people, probably better than most touring pros in fact based on what I have seen, but I'm not the problem. It's the vast majority of golfers for whom the rules are overly complicated that it's and issue.

Could the Rules be simplified? The answer is yes.

Would the resulting Rules be substantially different than what they are today? Again, the answer is yes.

Would the game of golf be somehow better with simpler Rules? To some people, yes, to others no.

The USGA and R&A have made it clear that they don't care about the recreational golfer so they are not going to change the Rules to make is simpler for them. And that's fine.

But taking a position that the current Rules are somehow perfect or immutable and that people are simply too lazy to understand their complexities is does nothing to help people become more Rules savvy.

[PapaPat]

And they should never change substantially. The fact that the rules seem complex to some is because they don't take the time to understand them. It's not the fault of those who make them, it's the fault of lazy people who don't want to bother.

If you want a better understanding of the rules, start by reading and learning the definitions. You'll be much further ahead. There's a reason they're at the front of the book.

I pretty much agree with this. I believe that one of the greatest contributors to the wilful ignorance towards the rules by many, can be traced to the number of rounds that are played without accountability to anyone else. Individuals often even just keep their own score.

In the past, in club settings it would be virtually unheard of to play a round without a little something on the side. The 2$ Nassau, Hollywoods or whatever. Now, at my club, foursome games other than a bit of skins, are rarely played. Each person plays his or her own game and enters it in the computer without any review or scrutiny. Play something for something, a beer, a dime, or whatever, and all of a sudden accountability with regard to rules and much of the essence of the game is restored.

Get your regular foursome or group of buddies to play for something and watch how fast their interest and awareness of the rules increases.