"Are Rules Made to be Broken?"

[sensfan63]

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.

Playing two balls is always an option. If that's what people need to be told, so be it. That's a fairly easy solution, no?

[AAA]

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.

What's the matter with using rule 3-3. That's what it's for.

Of course if we all still played matchplay life would be easier.

[Kilroy]

Yes that's an option if the question arrises before the ball is played, but many times people play mistakenly and have no idea they even made an error.

[sensfan63]

Yes that's an option if the question arrises before the ball is played, but many times people play mistakenly and have no idea they even made an error.

Sure, but that mistake is not on the Rules, it's on the player.

Seriously, and you're a Rules guy, how many REALLY complicated scenarios do you see in your daily games over the course of a month?

I believe that we are bickering over things we see/hear on TV, and don't apply to the vast, vast majority of people on this forum.

Either that, or jvincent has a degenerate skateboarding nephew that he wants to play golf with, but the kid won't do it because he hates authority and rules...

[Kilroy]

My point only had to do with your statement "There are rules officials for a reason, they are there to help you.". Really they aren't even there when most people play.

And yes I am certified L2 but I don't officiate so I don't use the user title. I'd say there have been at least 4 issues per month that I had to look up when I got home. Not highly complex rulings but some uncertainty on my part or a player or players in the group may dispute something. I'll then find the decision and email the group. We are all learning and enjoying playing by the rules.

It is interesting sometimes when a new player plays with the group.

[jvincent]

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.

How does no conditional application or exceptions lead to abuse in the situations I have described?

Nothing about getting rid of the free relief option prevents me from moving a movable obstruction.

I never said the Rules didn't make sense. I just said they can be simplified and I have give two very concrete examples of simplifications that are both easy to understand and implement.

By my count you are now 0-2 in finding fault in my no free relief option. Care to try again?

[AAA]

I never said the Rules didn't make sense. I just said they can be simplified and I have give two very concrete examples of simplifications that are both easy to understand and implement.

You are quite right within the limited contraints of the challenge.

The problems arise when everyone stops playing golf because it is too difficult

[LobWedge]

Nothing about getting rid of the free relief option prevents me from moving a movable obstruction.

That's free relief. Now you're differentiating between movable and immovable obstructions. That's not easier.

[sensfan63]

That's free relief. Now you're differentiating between movable and immovable obstructions. That's not easier.

there you go. 1/3. In baseball that's Hall of Fame numbers!

[Ruskie]

I think you guys are getting too hung up on the "no relief" thing, so I'll give you some more examples of unnecessary complexity:

1. OB vs. hazard. Why can't you take a drop from OB the same was you would from a hazard? You put your ball somewhere you weren't supposed to, take a drop and a penalty and move on. I understand all the reasons why it is different, but do you really think your average hacker cares? I've heard people call everything staked "OB" and assume they can just drop at the point of entry.

2. Ball is inside a hazard if it's fully inside, but is OB if it touches the line. Really, is there a need for this?

3. You can remove red or yellow stakes if they're in the way, but can't remove white stakes. Again, is this really crucial to the game of golf?

4. You can unplug your ball in the fairway (and usually in the rough), but can't fix the hole before you drop.

5. If you have a bug on your ball, you can remove it with your hands... unless it's in a bunker, in which case you can only blow on it.

6. You can rake the bunker you played from... unless your ball is still there.

7. And my personal favorite: if your ball moved on the green after you grounded your putter behind it, you get a stroke penalty. If you don't put it back, you get another stroke... unless you were an old tour pro still shuffling your feet into position or blowing your nose.

Do I need to go on? Forgive me for any misconceptions in the above. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable of the rules, but by no means a guru.

Do you really think an average hacker knows, or wants to know any of these? Do you think he should, if he plays 5-10 rounds a year? Do you think it would be a good idea to have a simplified set of rules for him, even if they omit the finer points of the official rule book? Don't you think it would provide a much more level playing field for him and his buddies for their Nassau game, as opposed to bumbling through what some friend of a friend told him about some obscure decision or what he saw on TV?

[jvincent]

That's free relief. Now you're differentiating between movable and immovable obstructions. That's not easier.

OK, I'll give you that moving the obstruction constitutes free relief under the current rules.

You are still thinking in the context of the current rules though. In my simplified rules there is no such thing as an immovable obstruction.

If something is in your way and it can be moved, because it is not permanently attached, then you move it. See, no differentiation in my system.

[jvincent]

there you go. 1/3. In baseball that's Hall of Fame numbers!

Not so fast sparky, there's no such thing as an immovable obstruction in my Rules. We'll call that one a base on balls. Still 0/2 with a walk.

[jvincent]

You are quite right within the limited contraints of the challenge.

The problems arise when everyone stops playing golf because it is too difficult

The people who stop playing because it's too difficult already don't follow the rules for scoring so my simplified version probably isn't going to change that.

[PapaPat]

2. Ball is inside a hazard if it's fully inside, but is OB if it touches the line. Really, is there a need for this?

Good list to make your point, however, you have this example backwards. A ball is in a hazard if it just touches the hazard line, and a ball is in bounds if any part of it touches the course. Since it is a ball, touches does not necessarily mean actually touching as hanging over would touch the vertical line extended upwards.

[Ruskie]

Good list to make your point, however, you have this example backwards. A ball is in a hazard if it just touches the hazard line, and a ball is in bounds if any part of it touches the course. Since it is a ball, touches does not necessarily mean actually touching as hanging over would touch the vertical line extended upwards.

Thanks for the correction, I knew I got some of those backwards

[Sakuraba]

The robert Rock DQ really, really bothers me. If I am correct about his disqualification, he put the correct total score on his official scorecard, but had the 2 nines transposed (he put his scores from holes 1-9 on the 10-18 side and vice versa) is that what really happened?
EDIT: he had 2 holes confused, not 2 nines, but his 18 hole score was correct

[LobWedge]

John, I understand that making rules simpler is your goal, but doing away with obstructions altogether is too simplistic, potentially dangerous, and potentially costly.

Examples

1. I hit my tee shot down the fairway and it comes to rest on a $200 sprinkler head. Under your simplified rule, I can either play the ball as it lies, OR declare it unplayable and take a 1 stroke penalty. I hit the fairway, why should I have to take a penalty? Sure, I can play it as it lies, risk injury and damage to the sprinkler head, and probably get my ass handed to me by the head groundskeeper, but I shouldn't have to take the penalty stroke.

2. I pipe a drive right down the middle and the ball comes to rest a foot behind the 100 yard marker, that is a post that sticks up 18 inches, and is fixed so it can't be moved. Now I'm FUBAR because I've hit a near perfect drive and either have to risk the shaft of my wedge and/or my own safety, or take a penalty stroke.

[sensfan63]

The robert Rock DQ really, really bothers me. If I am correct about his disqualification, he put the correct total score on his official scorecard, but had the 2 nines transposed (he put his scores from holes 1-9 on the 10-18 side and vice versa) is that what really happened?

I don't know the exact situation but if true, that's just him not paying attention. You have to do three things in tournament golf - show up within five minutes of your tee time, sign your scorecard, and make sure you don't have any numbers lower than what you scored on individual holes. How about some personal responsibility in all of this?

[LobWedge]

The robert Rock DQ really, really bothers me. If I am correct about his disqualification, he put the correct total score on his official scorecard, but had the 2 nines transposed (he put his scores from holes 1-9 on the 10-18 side and vice versa) is that what really happened?
EDIT: he had 2 holes confused, not 2 nines, but his 18 hole score was correct

The rules don't account for total score. Individual hole scores are what counts. Because he signed for a lower score than he was entitled to on one of the holes, he was DQ. Simple.

Let's say you're buying a car for $23,000, but the bill of sale reads $32,000, and you sign it without checking. Who's at fault? You are for not checking it before you signed. Professional scorecards are being signed for larger sums of money than this. If I'm messing around with a few hundred thousand dollars, you can be sure I'm going to make sure it's right.

[Sakuraba]

The rules don't account for total score. Individual hole scores are what counts. Because he signed for a lower score than he was entitled to on one of the holes, he was DQ. Simple.

Let's say you're buying a car for $23,000, but the bill of sale reads $32,000, and you sign it without checking. Who's at fault? You are for not checking it before you signed. Professional scorecards are being signed for larger sums of money than this. If I'm messing around with a few hundred thousand dollars, you can be sure I'm going to make sure it's right.

I see you point, but in this situation above I would say he signed a $23000 bill of sale for a $23000 car, but in the options it said the block heater was $1800 and the sun roof was $800, when in fact the reverse was the truth.

[jvincent]

John, I understand that making rules simpler is your goal, but doing away with obstructions altogether is too simplistic, potentially dangerous, and potentially costly.

Examples

1. I hit my tee shot down the fairway and it comes to rest on a $200 sprinkler head. Under your simplified rule, I can either play the ball as it lies, OR declare it unplayable and take a 1 stroke penalty. I hit the fairway, why should I have to take a penalty? Sure, I can play it as it lies, risk injury and damage to the sprinkler head, and probably get my ass handed to me by the head groundskeeper, but I shouldn't have to take the penalty stroke.

2. I pipe a drive right down the middle and the ball comes to rest a foot behind the 100 yard marker, that is a post that sticks up 18 inches, and is fixed so it can't be moved. Now I'm FUBAR because I've hit a near perfect drive and either have to risk the shaft of my wedge and/or my own safety, or take a penalty stroke.

As I have said many times in this thread, I'm not interested in the fairness of a simplified set of rules.

I don't dispute anything you have said, but conditional fairness is what leads to complexities and confusion.

As per my earlier example, drive down the middle that lands in a divot with an exposed rock. Under the current rules I get no relief and it is no different than either of the two situations you just described in terms of the probability of it happening.

[LobWedge]

As per my earlier example, drive down the middle that lands in a divot with an exposed rock. Under the current rules I get no relief and it is no different than either of the two situations you just described in terms of the probability of it happening.

So why bother with a change then, if it happens so infrequently?

BTW - here's the R&A's logic on divots...

Is it permissible to have a Local Rule providing relief without penalty from divot holes or repaired divot holes (e.g. holes that have been filled and/or seed mix)?

No. See Decision 33-8/34.

Whilst it is understandable that golfers wish to take relief without penalty from divot holes – as a “good lie” is their priority – and Committees wish to protect their courses, essentially, such holes are not abnormal ground conditions; divots are prevalent on all courses.
If relief is permitted from divot holes (seeded or otherwise), there is the strong possibility that the player will create another divot in playing the stroke from the new location, often a location with good grass cover and in good condition. The number of divots and potential bad lies increases, rather than decreases, which leads in turn to increased maintenance.
Playing from a seeded divot may prevent the new grass from establishing itself, but it does not damage any existing good ground; the sand/seed is scattered, but this can be replaced.
With such a Local Rule, 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.
If divots are seriously interfering with the proper playing of the game, e.g. there is an area where balls gather, the Committee may rope off the area and mark it as ground under repair for the time it takes for the area to repair.

[Ruskie]

The rules don't account for total score. Individual hole scores are what counts. Because he signed for a lower score than he was entitled to on one of the holes, he was DQ. Simple.

Let's say you're buying a car for $23,000, but the bill of sale reads $32,000, and you sign it without checking. Who's at fault? You are for not checking it before you signed. Professional scorecards are being signed for larger sums of money than this. If I'm messing around with a few hundred thousand dollars, you can be sure I'm going to make sure it's right.

Actually, I think if you were told the car was $23K but you signed for $32K, depending on the circumstances, it might constitute fraud on the part of the seller, or perhaps false advertising.

[jvincent]

So why bother with a change then, if it happens so infrequently?

Because the concept of free relief, but only in some cases, plus the conditions about taking relief (must be full, what club to use, etc) are what causes the most confusion.

Ergo, remove the option for free relief and you make things simpler.

[Ruskie]

So why bother with a change then, if it happens so infrequently?

BTW - here's the R&A's logic on divots...

Is it permissible to have a Local Rule providing relief without penalty from divot holes or repaired divot holes (e.g. holes that have been filled and/or seed mix)?

No. See Decision 33-8/34.

Whilst it is understandable that golfers wish to take relief without penalty from divot holes – as a “good lie” is their priority – and Committees wish to protect their courses, essentially, such holes are not abnormal ground conditions; divots are prevalent on all courses.
If relief is permitted from divot holes (seeded or otherwise), there is the strong possibility that the player will create another divot in playing the stroke from the new location, often a location with good grass cover and in good condition. The number of divots and potential bad lies increases, rather than decreases, which leads in turn to increased maintenance.
Playing from a seeded divot may prevent the new grass from establishing itself, but it does not damage any existing good ground; the sand/seed is scattered, but this can be replaced.
With such a Local Rule, 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.
If divots are seriously interfering with the proper playing of the game, e.g. there is an area where balls gather, the Committee may rope off the area and mark it as ground under repair for the time it takes for the area to repair.

The argument that divots are commonplace and, therefore, part of the course, is ludicrous. Cart paths are prevalent as well, so are sprinklers. All are man-made.

I also find it funny that the decision talks about protecting the course from damage when the percentage of shots landing in divots is rather small I would think. If that were such a significant source of damage to the course, why aren't practice swings forbidden?

[LobWedge]

If that were such a significant source of damage to the course, why aren't practice swings forbidden?

Because a proper practice swing doesn't take a divot. Taking divots with practice swings is careless behavior.

[LobWedge]

Because the concept of free relief, but only in some cases, plus the conditions about taking relief (must be full, what club to use, etc) are what causes the most confusion.

Ergo, remove the option for free relief and you make things simpler.

Complete relief = easy.
Using the club you would normally use to make the next stroke = easy.
Not taking the time to understand these easy concepts, and complain about them instead = lazy.

[jvincent]

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.

[Ruskie]

Because a proper practice swing doesn't take a divot. Taking divots with practice swings is careless behavior.

Agreed, but we all make mistakes and divots on practice swings happen more often than playing out of a divot, yet there's still no rule against it. My point is that an extra divot in the fairway, from which the rule apparently tries to protect the courses, is not a big deal.

[justsomeguy]

The argument that divots are commonplace and, therefore, part of the course, is ludicrous. Cart paths are prevalent as well, so are sprinklers. All are man-made.

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.