It was agreed in another thread that we would have a go at rewriting some of the rules to see if we could make them clearer or easier to understand from a laymans perspective.

We are at the stage of gathering suggestions for which rules we should try this on.

The 2 suggestions so far are;
1. Sand filled divots on the fairways.
2. Moving loose impediments in hazards.

We would like some consensus on which to tackle first and I’ve suggested that before rewriting any of them, we need to firstly understand the intent of a rule, and whether presently it is, or should be, fair and equitable.

Are you looking for rule changes or clarity?

And fair dinkum, sand filled divots are part of the game and should be accepted as such – they simply add more spice to the s**t happens factor, sorry, rub of the green.

The background is in the thread called “moving rake in bunker”.

My view is it is a concensus of we here on the forum that should decide if a rule should be rewritten for clarity or if it is unfair and should be rewritten to make it fairer and in the best interests of the game.

The back cover of the 2004 Rules of Golf states:
Play the ball as it lies
Play the course as you find it
And if you can’t do either, do what is fair.
But to do what is fair, you need to
know the Rules of Golf.

Which implies the rules are meant to be fair. A lot of people (including me) think there are many instances where they are not and would like to address that situation.

We all have opinions, but they are just that and everyone is entitled to them. Yours and mine may not agree, but they shoud nonetheless be respected.

“Play the ball as it lies
Play the course as you find it
And if you can’t do either, do what is fair.
But to do what is fair”

Aren’t these the original rules of golf?

Norm seems to want to change some Rules. This is different to rewriting to improve clarity.
However I think there will be some good discussion on the concepts of why some things are what they are.
Obviously there are things that might be 50/50.
Take the embedded ball relief. The Rules state “on closely mown portions, through the green” (fairways) and a Local Rule may be written to extend to through the green generally.
In the US there is a Local Rule just about everywhere in force all the time. It seems that the R & A won a toss of the coin or something to maintain the current situation in the Rule book.
Regarding doing “what is fair”...The fairness is not what seems an equitable thing for the player but what is fair to everybody else playing the competition.
That is what I believe. And to “do what is fair you need to know the Rules of Golf”.
An example..just because you hit a fabulous shot you don’t necessarily get a good bounce and the ball careers off into the heavy rough. This is not “fair” to the player but he has to cop it sweet. Suppose the bounce was a result of hitting a sprinkler head… you can’t estimate where the ball might have gone if the sprinkler head was not there and drop a ball there.

Norm

As the one who raised the challenge, I’m not sure you have got it right.

We weren’t tasked with doing anything. You made a comment about a rule, I suggested that you try and improve it.

You pick the rule, identify the problem and suggest your alternative. I will be happy to attempt to explain the rationale behind the existing version.

Which implies the rules are meant to be fair. A lot of people (including me) think there are many instances where they are not and would like to address that situation.

The ruling bodies take the view that doing what is fair is mostly about what is fair to your fellow competitors – everyone in the field for event other than you.

And the opposite is equally valid, for example, you hit your horrible high slice oob onto a road that runs beside the par 5, it bounces and bounces, hits a car and comes back in bounds next to the green (I’ve actually done this). do you then have to take the ball as oob? No it’s on the fairway…

Swings and roundabouts guys…

Norm. The sand filled divot situation is one that I disliked intensely so I looked into it to find out why the rule could not be fairer. I found that changing the rule in any way to improve it would actually only make the rule & its implementation far more difficult so & shut up & decided to put up with what we have. I would respectfully suggest that this is the case with the majority of golf rules.

Norm. The sand filled divot situation is one that I disliked intensely so I looked into it to find out why the rule could not be fairer. I found that changing the rule in any way to improve it would actually only make the rule & its implementation far more difficult so & shut up & decided to put up with what we have.

Agree, Pom. The “sand filled divot rule” is easy to write. “Play it as it lies” :-)

A couple of points guys;

AAA…

I didn’t raise the challenge, I was challenged by someone else to rewrite because I commented that they could be written better. I hold by that view.

Languid..

No, I don’t necessarily want to change any rules and I’m not suggesting I have a mortgage on good ideas about how they should be rewritten. I have said I thought it would be waste of time but previous comments encouraged me to think that if it were done well, we might actually achieve something perhaps worthwhile.

The reason I called for a concensus was that I’m not so egotistical to think a rule should be rewritten just because I personally don’t like it. I’m basically thinking of the good of the game and golfers in general. If the concensus is that the rules are fine, then I’ll take my bat and ball, go home, and shut up.

I know the sand filled divot is pretty contentious and everyone’s entitled to their opinion on whether it’s fair or not. But I also think it’s not just a question of whether it’s fair to the players, what about the course? Better players will have no issue with hitting off a properly filled divot, whereas the majority may. But think of the ongoing damage to the course. I happen to think it should come under a local rule, so that the condition of the course and the type of traffic it endures be the determining factor.

For example, a good player will likely be able to sweep it off the top with hardly and further damage, whereas a poorer player will likely try to ‘dig’ it out and worsen the damage, giving the grass no chance to recover.

But that’s just my opinion

Norm, I don’t doubt your motives or passion.
As for sand filled divots, landing in one is a case of bad luck, I don’t think we’ll see anyone proposing a rule change for a ball deflected back to the middle of the fairway when it was obviously going OOB. As for damage to the course, a divot is already damage, allowing relief will mean two divots, not one = more damage. Education of players and overcoming selfishness or laziness in repairing divots and pitch marks would go a long way to decreasing the angst in having a ball in a divot.
I am an interested observer in anything that may be posted relative to a re-writing of a rule, I will observe as I don’t think I am capable of writing one better. The rules have evolved over time, both the RBs have (IMO) sought to simplify the rules and change the language to assist.
Golf is a strange game, there are so many variables, no two courses in the world are the same, topography, weather,committees and other factors impinge on the playing of the game, it is a world game. But unlike the other sports, the stage is different at every site.
The rules are not simple, they take a degree of commitment to master and understand and players and officials struggle to do their best. A highly respected rules official that I know says there are two types of ROs, those that have made a mistake, and those that will make one.
I don’t think that your ideas should be discouraged, but some great golfing minds have been switched onto the rules for as long as the game has existed. But, just maybe one of your simplified rules can lessen the error rate for players and officials. Good luck.

I think you make some good points B. Some are arguable and that’s part of the problem. It’s very important in these situations to respect the opinions of others if the discussion is to be productive.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this forum is the best one to use for such complex and contentious issues. Too many opportunities for misunderstanding and misinterpretations. Much better face to face but that won’t happen.

I initially felt that might be the case but the only way I can see it working is if we all agree to stay on track.

That is, we firstly need a consensus on which rule to try a rewrite. If we can’t get that, there is no point in going any further.

So let’s see the suggestions, if no clear winner, let’s stop there.

Norm_C
If this little group is having trouble getting a clear idea of what this thread is trying to achieve do you think we have any chance in sending the Rulling Gods clarity and concensus? But I like Languid’s 1st idea ….

25-2. Embedded Ball: A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.

Why? You can’t rely on match committees to post a local rule when most of them don’t tee off until “gentleman’s hour” (noon) and by that time people like me have finished the round. Up my way it might only rain for 10 minutes at midnight but this is enough to soften the course.

And another ….

8-1/2 Exchanging Distance Information

Information regarding the distance between two objects is public information and not advice. It is therefore permissible for players to exchange information relating to the distance between two objects. For example, a player may ask anyone, including his opponent, fellow-competitor or either of their caddies, the distance between his ball and the hole.

When the Local Rule allowing the use of distance-measuring devices has been adopted (see Note to Rule 14-3), information regarding distance MAY BE obtained from an artificial device used during the stipulated round.

Why? What is the point of NOT being able to share this info as it seems unfair not to share it.

The one rule I always thought a bit unfair was having to drop under penalty from a bunker filled with water. You can’t help that it rained and the bunker couldn’t take any more water. It’s unplayable as it is submerged and unless you get your kit off, and your scuba gear on, there’s no way to play it.

Interesting you raise this. There is a Decision I only just heard about. The number is 33-8/27 I will try to copy and paste it following. If I dont succeed it is on page 512 of the R & A Decision Book.

33-8/27 Local Rule Providing Relief Without Penalty from Bunker Filled with Casual Water

Q. May a Committee make a Local Rule allowing a player to drop out of any bunker filled with casual water, without penalty, contrary to Rule 25-1b(ii)?

A. No. The Committee may not make a Local Rule providing generally that flooded bunkers are ground under repair through the green as such a Local Rule waives a penalty imposed by the Rules of Golf, contrary to Rule 33-8b.

However, in conditions of extreme wetness, where certain specific bunkers are completely flooded prior to the competition commencing and there is no reasonable likelihood of the bunkers drying up during the competition, the Committee may, in such exceptional circumstances, introduce a Local Rule providing that specific bunkers, which are known to be flooded prior to the competition commencing, are deemed to be ground under repair and classified as through the green. Therefore relief may be taken outside these bunkers without penalty in accordance with Rule 25-1b(i). In a competition played over more than one round, such a Local Rule may be introduced or rescinded between rounds. (Revised)

Please note that theCommittee has to declare the specific bunkers as “through the green as well as GUR” . Without those 3 little words any drop would be under penalty.

Unfortunately many Club Captains/Match Committees either don’t understand or forget.

A couple of points guys;

AAA…

I didn’t raise the challenge, I was challenged by someone else to rewrite because I commented that they could be written better. I hold by that view.

Norm

I was the one who raised the challenge.

I said

As the one who raised the challenge, I’m ….........

Incidentally, I’m not on about rules themselves which should be changed because someone doesn’t like it or thinks it is wrong but only about rewriting for clarification of the existing rule. That is the challenge.

8-1/2 Exchanging Distance Information

Information regarding the distance between two objects is public information and not advice. It is therefore permissible for players to exchange information relating to the distance between two objects. For example, a player may ask anyone, including his opponent, fellow-competitor or either of their caddies, the distance between his ball and the hole.

When the Local Rule allowing the use of distance-measuring devices has been adopted (see Note to Rule 14-3), information regarding distance MAY BE obtained from an artificial device used during the stipulated round.

Why? What is the point of NOT being able to share this info as it seems unfair not to share it.

I’m not clear what you are saying. If the LR is in force, the information may be shared between players. There is nothing to stop the player ‘with’ telling the player ‘without’ nor the player ‘without’ asking the player ‘with’.

“A player who obtains distance information that he knew was measured by anyone with an artificial device during the player’s round is disqualified under Rule 14-3. (Revised)”

This is the last sentence I deleted from the ruling above. My interpretation and that of my club’s committee is that it applies regardless of whether the device is approved through a local rule.

If you disagree, this is yet another eample where the rules need to be reworded for clarity.

Surely if the local rule is in place it overides this ruling The local rule allows the use of an artificial device for measurement , it does not stipulate that the player must be carrying it. What would be the situation at my club where 3 players are in carts with GPS. devices & a 4th player is walking with no device . Is it your committees feeling that this 4th player be DQd if he asks for a distance from 1 of the other players. That would be ridiulous.

Yes, that is their opinion and that is how the ruling reads to me – that is why it is either a ridiculous rule or we are reading it incorrectly. But if you read that sentence, even in context with the whole rule, it can go either way.
I have just sent an email to USGA seeking clarification.

Except when the Local Rule allowing the use of distance-measuring devices has been adopted (see Note to Rule 14-3), information regarding distance must not have been obtained from an artificial device used during the stipulated round. A player who obtains distance information that he knew was measured by anyone with an artificial device during the player’s round is disqualified under Rule 14-3. (Revised)

When read as written (ie as on discrete paragraph) it makes sense to me.

The English construct is:

Except when the Local Rule allowing the use of distance-measuring devices has been adopted, a player who obtains distance information that he knew was measured by anyone with an artificial device during the player’s round is disqualified under Rule 14-3.

I’d agree there. A well-written paragraph in English typically focuses on one idea or scenario – here the focus is on what happens in the case where the local rule hasn’t been adopted.

The disqualification part was obviously put in there primarily to stop a player’s buddy in the crowd from yelling out the measured distance.

That said, if it causes confusion then it isn’t well written.

It would seem we are in agreement that some, if not many, of the rules could be worded better. I think in some cases, the intent is not even clear to enable an equitable or common sense interpretation.

The foregoing examples indicate what appears to be a lack of diligence in the wording which is precisely the issue that peeves me about the rules.

Another thing I think we may be struggling with on occasions is, for want of a better word, cultural differences. Lets face it, both the English and the Americans both sometimes have what appears to other countries (not just Australians), to be peculiar ways of expressing things.

I find the Americans in particular often take too much for granted.

I love a thread like this, and although the R and A and USGA seem to be bigger than life, many changes in the world on many levels have happened by the determination of just a few passionate individuals.

Although golf is a game, I think some of the rules of golf are absurd, senseless and ridiculous.

One of the problems I see is that the weekend golfer plays by a different set of rules than a tour player. Gimmies, inside the leather,
mulligans, lost balls are dropped back in play, and not hit again from the tee. Tapping in with the pin still in… bumping the ball in the rough..
all this stuff is common place.. and I am not judging this behavior, but my point is, why do people do this? Is it because people really view the rules as absurd? So they then feel the right to apply their own absurdness to the game? Maybe their right in some cases.

From my unique perspective, being absent from the game for over a decade, the legalization of the new ball and oversized giant tennis racket drivers and 48 inch 10.5 ounce dead weights on titanium atom smashers is the most absurd thing I have witnessed. I have no idea how this ever happened to become legal. To hit the ball 40 yards farther…roughly 20% is completely mind boggling.

Given there have been some slight advancements in the game from 1930 to 1990, there was about a 60 year period where a 440 yard par four was a long iron second shot for your typical tour pro.
If you look at the Masters, Sarazen’s 1935 final round 235-yard 4-wood “into the cup” on the par-5 15th hole, was not playing much different than it did in 1988. That’s great drama and excitement. Now guys flip a 6 iron or less in there if they bomb a modern driver? It is what it is, but it is not more exciting that the risk reward factor of attempting a fairway wood, or a long iron over water…

If the concept here is to make the game easier and less frustrating,
why not make the hole bigger?

I would support a rewrite of the rules or another organization taking back a simpler or more traditional view of the game.