"Are Rules Made to be Broken?"

[LobWedge]

Easy for some, but not for most as has been demonstrated over and over again. How many decisions are there regarding taking free relief?

No free relief = even easier.

You understand it, right?

[jvincent]

Yes, but I count myself in the minority.

[LobWedge]

Yes, but I count myself in the minority.

Then why bother? I'm no rocket scientist, and I figured it out.

[jvincent]

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?

[Kilroy]

Well, it may help grow "A Game", but IMHO, not "The Game".

[LobWedge]

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?

What is your assumption based on? I don't see the game stagnating right now, least of all from a supposed "lack of understanding" of the rules. If anything is going to cause growth to stall, it's the escalating costs associated with playing it.

[jvincent]

"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".

[jvincent]

What is your assumption based on? I don't see the game stagnating right now, least of all from a supposed "lack of understanding" of the rules. If anything is going to cause growth to stall, it's the escalating costs associated with playing it.

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.

[Ruskie]

You do not get relief from things that are "man-made" - if you think about it the entire golf course is "man-made". Cart paths and sprinklers are obstructions - which are defined as being "artificial" and are easily identified. The "commonplace" argument was made to counter those people who think divots should be defined as an "abnormal ground condition".

The other possibility is treat divots as "ground under repair", however that raises a couple of issues:

1) WHAT exactly is a divot? - this was alluded to in the R&A example where they state "problems also arise over distinguishing divots from other damage, and the extent of the divot, i.e. whether the player actually has interference or not." Divots are gradually repaired by the course - so at what point is a divot sufficiently repaired that relief should no longer be granted? Which leads to the next problem...

2) WHO decides what is a divot? - only Committees can decide what is "ground under repair" and are required to mark it as such, but this is totally impractical for divots. So do we really want to allow golfers to decide what is GUR? I'm sure you can see how this will be abused.

When all is said and done, there is no guarantee of a good lie in the fairway any more than there is a guarantee of a bad lie in the rough. Sometimes you get lucky, other times... not so much.

"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.

[justsomeguy]

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?

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.