"Are Rules Made to be Broken?"

[PapaPat]

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.
.

Ah, the "recreational golfer". I'm afraid we will require a bit more definition here.

Is it the guy who does not really apply the selected rules he does not know or care about, but insists on boasting about his vanity handicap, or the fact that he is two over par on the last five holes, or delights in pointing out that he beat you by five strokes at the end of the round? This is the guy that I believe LW and I are talking about.

The truth is that there are many "recreational golfers" who are interested in learning the game better both from a swing, and rules perspective. If you are the resident rules smart guy, you are constantly asked rules related questions.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the regulatory bodies and the rest of us really don't care very much what the rest of the "recreational golfers" do. They have already developed their own "simplified" game anyway. Formalizing it is a job for someone other than those interested in golf.

[jvincent]

The recreational golfer is the overwhelming majority of golfers. He doesn't keep a handicap, doesn't play in tournaments, and generally doesn't give a crap about the Rules because the USGA and other ruling bodies go out of their way to be exclusionary.

The problem is that the recreational golfers are the ones who contribute the majority of the golfing revenue so if they become disinterested things can get bad quickly because all of a sudden number of rounds is down, equipment revenue is down, etc.

If the ruling bodies adopted a more of an inclusionary stance they would grow the game to the benefit of all.

[PapaPat]

The recreational golfer is the overwhelming majority of golfers. He doesn't keep a handicap, doesn't play in tournaments, and generally doesn't give a crap about the Rules because the USGA and other ruling bodies go out of their way to be exclusionary.

The problem is that the recreational golfers are the ones who contribute the majority of the golfing revenue so if they become disinterested things can get bad quickly because all of a sudden number of rounds is down, equipment revenue is down, etc.

If the ruling bodies adopted a more of an inclusionary stance they would grow the game to the benefit of all.

There are enough people already involved with a vested interest in ""growing the game", including all the Pro associations. The mandate of the R&A/USGA/RCGA includes protecting the game, not selling it out.

[jvincent]

From the RCGA webpage:

Recognized by Sport Canada as the National Sport Organization (NSO) for golf in this country, Golf Canada is responsible for promoting participation in and a passion for the game of golf in Canada.

Ignoring the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people who play golf find the Rules too complicated does not help with their stated goals.

[LobWedge]

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.

How can you say that the USGA and R&A don't care? The rules are constantly being reviewed. And as to the rules being too complicated, I call a huge pile of BS. In fact, they are quite simple. Yes, the language is complex, but it has to be in order to allow as little interpretation as possible. Are there a ton of decisions? Yes, because not one golf course is like another. But in spite of all that, the core rules apply uniformly across the board, whether you're playing St. Andrews, or Pineview. You can't say that about a lot of other sports.

[PapaPat]

From the RCGA webpage:



Ignoring the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people who play golf find the Rules too complicated does not help with their stated goals.

That would certainly appear to be the stated goal of Golf Canada. But is Golf Canada the RCGA? I'm sure, I don't know anymore. My impression is that the RCGA bundled up all the razzel dazzel stuff under their umbrella gave it a snappy new name and ran around making presentations that they were reinventing themselves. What they did not make a big fuss about is that all the game related things such as Rules, Course Rating, Handicaps were to have nothing to do with Golf Canada, but rather would stay under the name RCGA. The RCGA Statement is as follows:

"Our mission as the governing body of golf in Canada, is to promote participation in and a passion for the game while protecting its traditions and integrity"

Big difference. You may be right as to the overall direction, but I hope not.

[jvincent]

To be specific, I said they don't care about the recreational golfer. The most glaring example of this was the groove rule change.

All you need to do is read a lot of the questions on this forum to know that many people find the Rules confusing. Simplified Rules would still apply to all golf courses.

But the notion that somehow the current Rules are not perfect seems to raise the ire of some people.

The same way that the USGA can arbitrarily restrict the depth/shape of grooves they could arbitrarily remove some of the options for dropping when a ball enters a hazard. Why would that be such a bad thing? Fewer options is simpler and should make it easier to understand.

[jvincent]

That would certainly appear to be the stated goal of Golf Canada. But is Golf Canada the RCGA? I'm sure, I don't know anymore.

Personally I think they need to fire whoever came up with the whole Golf Canada/RCGA mess.

I really don't know either. I got my quote from the RCGA.org "About" page.

[Chambokl]

Rules are rules and they are sort of followed... it always amaze me how many really good golfer are not sure about some of the rules... yesterday I had to explain the rules about red, yellow and white stakes... can't remove the white stake... and these guys are 15, 7 and 0 hdcp... they just weren't sure...

It is not only in golf... softball / slo-pitch ... most players don't know 80% of the rules... basketball, football, hockey – they might be yelling at the referees but...

[PapaPat]

Personally I think they need to fire whoever came up with the whole Golf Canada/RCGA mess.

I really don't know either. I got my quote from the RCGA.org "About" page.

Good discussion, and we finally agree on something. Mine is from the back cover of the Decision Book.

[jvincent]

I'm guessing that the Decisions book came out before the rebranding.

[LobWedge]

To be specific, I said they don't care about the recreational golfer. The most glaring example of this was the groove rule change.

You mean the rule change that doesn't go in to effect for another 14 years for recreational golfers?

[jvincent]

Yes, that's the one. But it has created confusion, effectively two sets of rules, hurts the recreational golfer more than the tour pro, etc.

[mpare]

John, how can a rule that does not affect recreational golfers for 14 years be said to hurt the recreational golfer? I don't follow you on this

Yes, that's the one. But it has created confusion, effectively two sets of rules, hurts the recreational golfer more than the tour pro, etc.

[jvincent]

Because starting this year new wedges are supposed to conform to the new rules. While this isn't a big deal in practice, the USGA/R&A has forced companies to change their models. Guess who is going to pay for that?

[justsomeguy]

Ignoring the fact that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people who play golf find the Rules too complicated does not help with their stated goals.

Complicated in comparison to what? The rules are FAR more complicated in almost any other sport. I'll bet that 95% of the people on this forum think the rules of hockey are simple and straightforward and that they know them inside/out. Well here's the Rulebook:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=27011

I'll bet that even diehard hockey fans don't know 30% of these 87 rules inside/out. But that's OK because they don't have to - they have referees to do that for them.

The issue with rules for "recreational" golfers has nothing to do with whether the rules are "complicated" or not. The issue is that the game requires players to referee themselves, and 95% of golfers have never even attempted to read a rulebook.

[jvincent]

Apples and oranges comparison.

If golf had a referee that went out with every group, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Oh, and don't forget that the Rules of golf allow for mistakes by the rules official to be allowed. If the Rules were so simple they wouldn't need that rule would they?

[justsomeguy]

If golf had a referee that went out with every group, then there wouldn't be a problem.

...and your statement above just proves my point. Regardless of how easy and simple the rules are, most "recreational" golfers won't read them, won't know them, won't apply them and won't stop complaining about them. Why? Because the real problem has nothing to do with whether the rules are easy or complicated - the real issue is that people don't want to learn them.

Oh, and don't forget that the Rules of golf allow for mistakes by the rules official to be allowed. If the Rules were so simple they wouldn't need that rule would they?

Every rulebook in every sport has that.

[jvincent]

No disagreement that most people won't read the rules no matter how simple. But the simpler you make them, the more people will understand/follow them.

To blindly state that the current Rules of golf are "perfect" and need no changes or would not benefit from simplifications is absurd. As pointed out earlier, the rules get reviewed every 4 years and updated.

Would the Rules guys be complaining if as a part of the regular update free-relief was taken out? No, they'd be lined up behind the principle that the Rules of golf are perfect as is, even though last year they were completely different when it came to relief.

[AAA]

No disagreement that most people won't read the rules no matter how simple. But the simpler you make them, the more people will understand/follow them.

Do you really believe that the RBs don't want to make the rules simpler? They would love to. Apart from the Joint Rules Committee, thehave people working on the wording of the rules all the time.

The game is seemingly simple. The problem is that the environment it is played in is infinitely variable and complicated. The rules have to cope with all the 'what if' situations that can be envisaged. You will find that the biggest section of the Leith Society board is that devoted to hypothetical situations. All of which are just as likely to be encountered by the recreational player as most of the decisions already in the book. The R&A is driven by the national unions around the world. The national unions are paid for by amateur golfers not the pros.

I have asked on many of these boards for those who want the rules to be simpler, to rewrite any five rules themselves. I have had no takers yet.

A test of the succees would be directly related to the number of related decisions that are required.

Rule 12 takes about 2 pages in my book. Can you get it down to half that without any decisions?

[jvincent]

Two easy targets.

1. Free relief. Completely remove it from the Rules.

2. Rules for dropping. Two clublengths not nearer the hole (in case of unplayable or hazard0 or point where the previous stroke was last played. No other options.

Those two alone impact several specific rules and would greatly simplify the Rules and decisions.

[justsomeguy]

No disagreement that most people won't read the rules no matter how simple. But the simpler you make them, the more people will understand/follow them.

To blindly state that the current Rules of golf are "perfect" and need no changes or would not benefit from simplifications is absurd. As pointed out earlier, the rules get reviewed every 4 years and updated.

Oh, I don't feel the current Rules are perfect - not at all. I just think the notion that they are too complicated for most people to understand is a cop-out. The truth is that most "recreational" golfers have never made the attempt.

IMHO there are two major reasons why most golfers do not follow the rules:

1) Their scores will increase - Even if they don't know what the right way is, they know its a lot tougher than the way they play now. Why learn something that's going to COST you strokes? Ignorance is bliss - its much easier to just make up their own rules and complain that the actual Rules of Golf are too complicated and only apply to the pros.
2) They don't have to - Golf is different from virtually every other sport in that the players officiate themselves. Some people embrace that difference - others don't. Many golfers seem to believe that knowing the rules is supposed to be someone else's job, and/or have ingrained in them from other sports the attitude that infractions only matter if you get caught.

Trying to "dumb down" the Rules of Golf is not going to change this.

[sensfan63]

Oh, I don't feel the current Rules are perfect - not at all. I just think the notion that they are too complicated for most people to understand is a cop-out. The truth is that most "recreational" golfers have never made the attempt.

IMHO there are two major reasons why most golfers do not follow the rules:

1) Their scores will increase - Even if they don't know what the right way is, they know its a lot tougher than the way they play now. Why learn something that's going to COST you strokes? Ignorance is bliss - its much easier to just make up their own rules and complain that the actual Rules of Golf are too complicated and only apply to the pros.
2) They don't have to - Golf is different from virtually every other sport in that the players officiate themselves. Some people embrace that difference - others don't. Many golfers seem to believe that knowing the rules is supposed to be someone else's job, and/or have ingrained in them from other sports the attitude that infractions only matter if you get caught.

Trying to "dumb down" the Rules of Golf is not going to change this.

That's exactly what this is - a cop out. Well said.

[sensfan63]

Two easy targets.

1. Free relief. Completely remove it from the Rules.

2. Rules for dropping. Two clublengths not nearer the hole (in case of unplayable or hazard0 or point where the previous stroke was last played. No other options.

Those two alone impact several specific rules and would greatly simplify the Rules and decisions.

Free relief out? Seriously? There's a cart path that cuts thru the middle of the fairway and you drove it perfectly down the center, except that your ball ended up on the path. F it, you're screwed, hit it off the damn path and ruin your club. That's plain stupid.

The Rules are not overly complicated. People are either too stupid or too lazy to get familiar with the basics.

[jvincent]

Free relief out? Seriously? There's a cart path that cuts thru the middle of the fairway and you drove it perfectly down the center, except that your ball ended up on the path. F it, you're screwed, hit it off the damn path and ruin your club. That's plain stupid.

Replace "cart path" with "divot and rock". How is that any different?

In my simplfied rules both options allow for you to take an unplayable if you don't want to ding your club. Remember, I said nothing about making the Rules more fair. Just simpler.

And BTW, my clubs have several rock dings and gouges on them from hitting off of rocks and cartpaths because I felt that it was a better option for me to hit the ball off the path than take relief.

[jvincent]

Trying to "dumb down" the Rules of Golf is not going to change this.

Simpler does not mean dumbing down.

Free relief is a perfect example. The Rules have tried to make things more "fair" by allowing free relief from some things but not others. This adds complications because now there are scenarios that need to be interpreted, etc. Plus we get the never ending debates about how divots should be free relieve just like GUR, because it isn't "fair".

Notice how the concept of fairness keeps coming up? There is absolutely nothing that says the rules need to be "fair". The only concept of fairness that matters is all golfers play by the same rules.

I have simplified this by removing the option of free relief. You hit the ball where it lies or you take an unplayable.

[sensfan63]

Replace "cart path" with "divot and rock". How is that any different?

In my simplfied rules both options allow for you to take an unplayable if you don't want to ding your club. Remember, I said nothing about making the Rules more fair. Just simpler.

And BTW, my clubs have several rock dings and gouges on them from hitting off of rocks and cartpaths because I felt that it was a better option for me to hit the ball off the path than take relief.

Now you are delving into "man-made" vs. natural. It's not hard to make the distinction.

See, it seems like you are attempting to argue from the position of the brand new, completely ignorant (about the Rules) golfer. The game of golf sells itself, in my opinion. In light of how fairly expensive it is to start and continue playing, I think golf has a pretty good representation of people playing. Hell, if it were all about the Rules being simpler, you and all your buddies would be playing soccer until you were 80 years old.

IT'S NOT COMPLICATED. People just need to pay attention, if they want to understand. My experience is that they don't. Again, stupid and/or lazy.

[jvincent]

Last time I checked, a divot was man made.

I am arguing about one thing. Make things simpler. As the saying goes, KISS.

I am not trying to make things fair, I'm not trying to prevent damage to people's clubs, I'm not worried about beginner or expert golfers, I am not worried about the impact on a persons score.

If you remove the option for taking free relief things get a lot simpler. As a player you now have exactly two options if your ball is in a bad spot. Play it as it lies or take an unplayable. I have simplified the unplayable option to only be two club lengths not nearer the hole or replay from your last spot.

Those two changes alone wipe out a ton of decisions.

A rule that has NO conditional application or exceptions is always going to be easier to understand and enforce. Always.

Can you imagine if they changed the rule on golf balls so that you could use a different weight ball depending on the temperature and relative humidity? After all, the golf ball rules are meant to limit distance and distance is influenced by temp and RH so why shouldn't those be factored in?

And if the rules weren't complicated why is that there is a multi-level certification program? Because there are so many conditions/exceptions which need to be carefully considered in order for them to be correctly applied.

You can't argue the fact that people find the Rules complicated, they do. Even the Rules officials who study the Rules get it wrong some times or are uncertain.

[sensfan63]

Last time I checked, a divot was man made.

I am arguing about one thing. Make things simpler. As the saying goes, KISS.

I am not trying to make things fair, I'm not trying to prevent damage to people's clubs, I'm not worried about beginner or expert golfers, I am not worried about the impact on a persons score.

If you remove the option for taking free relief things get a lot simpler. As a player you now have exactly two options if your ball is in a bad spot. Play it as it lies or take an unplayable. I have simplified the unplayable option to only be two club lengths not nearer the hole or replay from your last spot.

Those two changes alone wipe out a ton of decisions.

A rule that has NO conditional application or exceptions is always going to be easier to understand and enforce. Always.

Can you imagine if they changed the rule on golf balls so that you could use a different weight ball depending on the temperature and relative humidity? After all, the golf ball rules are meant to limit distance and distance is influenced by temp and RH so why shouldn't those be factored in?

And if the rules weren't complicated why is that there is a multi-level certification program? Because there are so many conditions/exceptions which need to be carefully considered in order for them to be correctly applied.

You can't argue the fact that people find the Rules complicated, they do. Even the Rules officials who study the Rules get it wrong some times or are uncertain.

No conditional application or exceptions also has the potential to be abused...greatly. What happens if your ball sidles up to someone's pull cart? No free relief? Really?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. There are rules officials for a reason, they are there to help you.

The Rules make sense. For smart people.

[Kilroy]

There are rules officials for a reason, they are there to help you.

The average player doesn't have acces to an RO during virtually all rounds they play. In many cases rulings are needed and errors corrected before teeing off at the next hole. I have always viewed that urgency to resolve a question without an official as a problem.