Overlly Complicated?

[72 Divots]

I certainly do not want to offend anyone with what I am about to say, but I think it must be said. I have been playing for many years and have always had a decent understanding of the rules of golf. However, recently I have taken a much bigger interest in gaining a greater understanding of all the rules of golf and, therefore have been reading the rule book on a consistent basis.

With all this being said, it seems to me that the rules of golf are much more complicated than they need to be (particularlyl for non-tournament golf). Would it not make sense to standardize penalty strokes (e.g., make every infraction one-stroke) for example? Perhaps part of the complication is that solely knowing the rules is not enough to fully understand them as the interpretation of the rules is just as important.

I love the integrity aspect of golf and the character-building result of calling penalties on yourself. However, I think there would be much less unconscious violation of rules if they were easier to understand and interpret.

Am I way off base here?

[jvincent]

You are not the only one who thinks this, and it comes up very frequently.

In fact the latest revision of the rule book, which happens every 4(?) years, did try to simplify them somewhat. It's a hard thing to do because both the USGA and the R&A have to agree.

[Shivas Irons]

it seems to me that the rules of golf are much more complicated than they need to be (particularlyl for non-tournament golf).
Am I way off base here?

Nope, you're not off base at all.
Many people would agree there are too many rules, and they are too confusing. When my buddies & I are playing we basically use the rules we think apply & scrap the dumb ones - e.g. we allow moving a ball out of fairway divot, or the tamping down of ANY marks that might be in your line when putting.
The only rule that must be followed is that you enjoy your round of golf!

[LobWedge]

That’s the great thing about golf. Amateur or professional, tournament or non-tournament. Golf is golf. The rules apply the same to everyone.

As I see it, the reason that a 2 stroke penalty is applied when you break a rule is to differentiate from those times where you don’t break a rule but are also not entitled to a freebee to get yourself out of trouble (water hazard, OB, etc.). Remember, the ball is playable as it lies anywhere within the boundaries of the golf course (under water, among rocks, etc.), except as specified in the rules. As well, a 2 stroke penalty effectively removes par from the equation. Too bad, so sad. A player should not be able to “profit” by circumventing the rules.

Also remember that unlike other sports, each playing field is different from every other, so the rules need to be more open to interpretation (see Decisions) to account for the unique situations that arise.

[el tigre]

With all this being said, it seems to me that the rules of golf are much more complicated than they need to be (particularlyl for non-tournament golf). Would it not make sense to standardize penalty strokes (e.g., make every infraction one-stroke) for example? Perhaps part of the complication is that solely knowing the rules is not enough to fully understand them as the interpretation of the rules is just as important.

I love the integrity aspect of golf and the character-building result of calling penalties on yourself. However, I think there would be much less unconscious violation of rules if they were easier to understand and interpret.

I don't think the rules are any more complicated than any other sport. The big difference is that with golf it is the player's themselves that have to read the rulebook and understand it. Virtually every other sport has a referee, umpire or official to do that.

I've played hockey, football, baseball/softball, and broomball in my lifetime, and I never read a single page of any rulebook in those sports while I played them. I didn't need to. If I broke the rules (and got caught), there was always somebody else who knew the rules to make the call.

In golf, YOU make that call. So you gotta read the rulebook if you want to be sure you make the right call. If "making the right call" is not that important to you, and you just want to rely on your own sense of what is "fair" because you're just playing a fun round, then that's fine too. Frankly, that's what most golfers do.

[LobWedge]

I'm still baffled by the "logic" that you can't or don't have fun while playing within the rules. The real joy in the game for me is the challenge of trying to produce a great result from a less-than-perfect situation.

So your ball rolled in to an old divot. Big deal, you hit it there. Someone didn't come running out of the trees and put it there. What about the cleat and ball marks you leave behind for the next group? How in the world are you supposed to get any better if you don't learn to play the ball from those situations? You might as well just tee your ball up everywhere and pick up when you reach the green.

[jvincent]

I'm still baffled by the "logic" that you can't or don't have fun while playing within the rules. The real joy in the game for me is the challenge of trying to produce a great result from a less-than-perfect situation.

So your ball rolled in to an old divot. Big deal, you hit it there. Someone didn't come running out of the trees and put it there. What about the cleat and ball marks you leave behind for the next group? How in the world are you supposed to get any better if you don't learn to play the ball from those situations? You might as well just tee your ball up everywhere and pick up when you reach the green.

I couldn't figure out edit since I both agree and disagree with some of this.

I agree that for most situations, divots, ball marks, OB, etc. the rules are pretty simple and you should really just suck it up and hit the ball.

However, I also feel that many of the rules can be somewhat confusing, especially regarding when and how to properly take relief.

Could the rules be made simpler? Yes. Would they be the same as today? No. I'm sure some changes would benefit the player and others would not.

[LobWedge]

...I also feel that many of the rules can be somewhat confusing, especially regarding when and how to properly take relief.

This should help in that regard. I got one with my QGA membership this year.

http://www.rcga.org/english/RCGAStor...tem.asp?ID=298

Could the rules be made simpler? Yes. Would they be the same as today? No. I'm sure some changes would benefit the player and others would not.

Which ones? What would you change?

[HiG4s]

I'm still baffled by the "logic" that you can't or don't have fun while playing within the rules. The real joy in the game for me is the challenge of trying to produce a great result from a less-than-perfect situation.

So your ball rolled in to an old divot. Big deal, you hit it there. Someone didn't come running out of the trees and put it there. What about the cleat and ball marks you leave behind for the next group? How in the world are you supposed to get any better if you don't learn to play the ball from those situations? You might as well just tee your ball up everywhere and pick up when you reach the green.

It was brought up in a different thread awhile back that a sand filled divot is ground under repair and you get relief, but an unfilled divot is not and you must play it as it lies. Not sure if this is correct or not, but even so a filled divot with a ball in it you can still make reasonable contact, but down in an unfilled divot you cannot. And everyone is suppose to replace or fill their divots. So you get penalized a stroke because a previous player did not do what he was suppose to do. Perhaps not filling a divot should be a two stroke penalty?

[jvincent]

This should help in that regard. I got one with my QGA membership this year.

http://www.rcga.org/english/RCGAStor...tem.asp?ID=298

Which ones? What would you change?

I got a rule book with my GAO public player membership, so I'm good there. And I have read it.

Off the top of my head, I'd probably simplify water hazards, i.e. no difference between regular and lateral to simplify the dropping situations. If I were to to flip through it I'm sure I'd find some more.

[LobWedge]

It was brought up in a different thread awhile back that a sand filled divot is ground under repair and you get relief, but an unfilled divot is not and you must play it as it lies. Not sure if this is correct or not, but even so a filled divot with a ball in it you can still make reasonable contact, but down in an unfilled divot you cannot. And everyone is suppose to replace or fill their divots. So you get penalized a stroke because a previous player did not do what he was suppose to do. Perhaps not filling a divot should be a two stroke penalty?

You're not penalized a stroke. Whos to say that you can't hit a proper shot from that position. Divot holes, whether repaired, filled, or not, are never ground under repair. You either play it as it lies or declare it unplayable and proceed under Rule 28.

You can't penalize someone for not repairing a divot hole. On courses with bermuda grass, for instance, you're not supposed to replace divots because they don't grow back in.

Off the top of my head, I'd probably simplify water hazards, i.e. no difference between regular and lateral to simplify the dropping situations. If I were to to flip through it I'm sure I'd find some more.

Water hazards are easy. Red stakes, drop within 2 clublengths of the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, not nearer the hole. Yellow stakes, drop behind the hazard as far back as you want on an extension of the straight line formed by the flagstick and the point where your ball last crossed the margin of the hazard. (or use the drop area if there's one designated for that hole )

[Gary Hill]

Would it not make sense to standardize penalty strokes (e.g., make every infraction one-stroke) for example?

No. The penalty must fit the crime. Forgetting to mark your ball before you lift it cannot be the same penalty as playing with illegal clubs.

Perhaps part of the complication is that solely knowing the rules is not enough to fully understand them as the interpretation of the rules is just as important.

The Decisions on the Rules is for officials. There is no need for a player to read or understand the decisions.[/QUOTE]

However, I think there would be much less unconscious violation of rules if they were easier to understand and interpret.

The Rules of Golf are very simple. However, the Rules of Golf are very specific. There should be NO interpretation of the Rules. The Rules are to be followed exactly as written.

Give me an example of a Rule that you think needs interpretation and I will "walk you through it" to prove my point.

[jvincent]

Water hazards are easy. Red stakes, drop within 2 clublengths of the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard, not nearer the hole.

You forgot about the option of dropping on the other side of the hazard for laterals. See, not so simple after all.

[72 Divots]

Your arguement makes sense Gary particulalry regarding the punishment fitting crime. However, I'm not sure I agree that you can fully understand the rules without understanding the decisions. Do these decsions not relate to how the rules are applied - particularly in those rare situations where rule application is not so straight forward?

[Gary Hill]

You forgot about the option of dropping on the other side of the hazard for laterals. See, not so simple after all.

err.. I did not "forget" the options.
A water hazard is different from a lateral water hazard.
Each have their OWN definitions and options for dropping.

[HiG4s]

Rule 27-1. What if the course marshal says you are taking too long and will not let you go back to the tee box after a lost ball that you did not play a provisional because you thought you knew right where it was? Is the spot you are looking now the closest possible place to the previous spot and a one stroke penalty, or a violation of rule 27-1 and a two stroke penalty?

[Gary Hill]

Your arguement makes sense Gary particulalry regarding the punishment fitting crime. However, I'm not sure I agree that you can fully understand the rules without understanding the decisions. Do these decsions not relate to how the rules are applied - particularly in those rare situations where rule application is not so straight forward?

The decisions are special rulings on specific and usually unique circumstances.

The Rules of Golf are written in such a way that these decisions need not be read, known, or understood by the player in order for him to play the game and comply with the Rules.

That is why I challenged you to give me an example of a Rule that needs interpretation.

[Gary Hill]

Rule 27-1. What if the course marshal says you are taking too long and will not let you go back to the tee box after a lost ball that you did not play a provisional because you thought you knew right where it was? Is the spot you are looking now the closest possible place to the previous spot and a one stroke penalty, or a violation of rule 27-1 and a two stroke penalty?

Mark an X on your scorecard for that hole and play a little faster.

[72 Divots]

With the greatest of respect Gary, I fully expect that you would be able to walk me through pretty much every conceivable situation I could run into on the course (thus I concede your challenge). I guess my point is that the vast majority of people do not possess your knowledge of the rules and that for weekend hackers, some of the rules can be confusing and difficult to fully understand. I can refer to my rule book when such confusing situations arise, however I suspect the people playing behind me would not be so appreciative of my attempt to follow the rules to a tee. Fore!!!

[jvincent]

err.. I did not "forget" the options.
A water hazard is different from a lateral water hazard.
Each have their OWN definitions and options for dropping.

Hi Gary,

I was actually replying to LobWedge, since he specifically referred to red stakes, i.e. a lateral hazard, and didn't list all the options for dropping.

[davemiddle]

Golf is the only game that I know of where the fan at home can effect the income of a player.ie Tiger woods 2 stroke penatly

Here is a sport where the number 1 player in the world breaks a rule and does not know that he did .nor, does his caddy or the playing partner.

Or the marshall that is close by.

These people play golf for a living if the rules were simple like most other sports you would think they would know them inside out.

I quess the best view of the rules that I have heard is from the Little Red book in which players were discussing whether or not to play winter rules

Harvey's response was its golf just play it as it lies

[Gary Hill]

With the greatest of respect Gary, I fully expect that you would be able to walk me through pretty much every conceivable situation I could run into on the course (thus I concede your challenge). I guess my point is that the vast majority of people do not possess your knowledge of the rules and that for weekend hackers, some of the rules can be confusing and difficult to fully understand. I can refer to my rule book when such confusing situations arise, however I suspect the people playing behind me would not be so appreciative of my attempt to follow the rules to a tee. Fore!!!

My point was not to prove that I know the Rules. I was trying to point out that each Rule in itself is very simple. If you have a general working knowledge of the Rules, there should be NO reason to be flipping through the Rules of Golf during play.

Lets take a ball on a bridge as an example.

A general understanding of the definition of water hazard tells you that a water hazard extends vertically upward. Just knowing this one definition is enough for you to know that a bridge above a water hazard is IN the hazard.

If you have a general understanding of Rule 13-4, you would know that there are ONLY 3 actions that are prohibited before making a stroke at a ball which lies in a hazard.

1. Testing the condition of the hazard.
2. Touching the ground in a hazard or touching the water in a water hazard.
3. Touching or moving a loose impediment in a hazard.

You now know everything you need to know.

Can I play the ball off the bridge? Of course, you can ALWAYS play your ball as it lies.
Do I get free relief? No. Your ball is in the hazard.
Can I ground my club on the bridge? Yes. You are not testing the hazard or touching the water.

[Gary Hill]

Or the marshall that is close by.

FYI - Marshals have NOTHING to do with the Rules.

Marshals are outside agencies whose sole purpose is to manage the flow of traffic for players and spectators.

Asking for a ruling from a marshal is the same as asking a spectator for a ruling.

[LobWedge]

Hi Gary,

I was actually replying to LobWedge, since he specifically referred to red stakes, i.e. a lateral hazard, and didn't list all the options for dropping.

The reason I didn't expand on it is because the 2 situations I described happen 99% of the time under that rule. You're over-reading things. Keep it simple.

[jvincent]

The reason I didn't expand on it is because the 2 situations I described happen 99% of the time under that rule. You're over-reading things. Keep it simple.

Simplifying it was my original intent. The fact is that the current rules offer several options and for many people they are confusing.

If the rule for all water hazards were "Drop within two club lengths not nearer the hole from point of entry OR replay from last spot." would that not be even simpler?

[LobWedge]

Simplifying it was my original intent. The fact is that the current rules offer several options and for many people they are confusing.

If the rule for all water hazards were "Drop within two club lengths not nearer the hole from point of entry OR replay from last spot." would that not be even simpler?

Okay, so what happens if you've hit a drive of some 270+ yards in to a water hazard. For some reason you're unable to drop your ball within the 2 clublengths. Currently there are other options in the rules to help you remedy this. Under your proposal you now have to go all the way back to the tee. Tell me how this saves time?

[Gary Hill]

If the rule for all water hazards were "Drop within two club lengths not nearer the hole from point of entry OR replay from last spot." would that not be even simpler?

What if the water hazard crossing the fairway is only six inches wide? How do you prevent players from dropping within two club lengths and not nearer the hole but "on the hole side" of the hazard, thereby not negotiating the hazard with a stroke?

[jvincent]

Okay, so what happens if you've hit a drive of some 270+ yards in to a water hazard. For some reason you're unable to drop your ball within the 2 clublengths. Currently there are other options in the rules to help you remedy this. Under your proposal you now have to go all the way back to the tee. Tell me how this saves time?

Under MY rules of golf, you have two options, two club lengths or rehit. Simple choice. Not sure what situation would prevent you from dropping, but if you can't, just hit another.

I didn say it would make play faster, just the rules would be simpler.

Note there isn't anything preventing you from hitting a provisional from the tee for a ball that may be in the water in my rules.

[jvincent]

What if the water hazard crossing the fairway is only six inches wide? How do you prevent players from dropping within two club lengths and not nearer the hole but "on the hole side" of the hazard, thereby not negotiating the hazard with a stroke?

You don't.

That would be a scenario where the rules work to your advantage.

[LobWedge]

Under MY rules of golf, you have two options, two club lengths or rehit. Simple choice. Not sure what situation would prevent you from dropping, but if you can't, just hit another.

I didn say it would make play faster, just the rules would be simpler.

Note there isn't anything preventing you from hitting a provisional from the tee for a ball that may be in the water in my rules.

I still fail to see what isn't simple about a rule that can be applied "as is" 99% of the time.