Does the USGA Rules book make sense?

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Covert said:

Okay, thanks. It's ironic that a few books have been published and presumably sold with the premise of making the rule book simpler. I won't say anything more about it here.

Those books you refer to may dumb it down, but they become a lot more wordy in the process, and the better ones include illustrations.  They also only prepare the player for some of the most routine applications of the rules, and anyone who has played for any length of time knows that playing golf goes far beyond routine.  It's a complex game, in part because of the size and variability of the playing field and of the equipment used on that field.  As a result, the rules must reach a level of complexity that can address all of those variables in an equitable manner.

[Baog]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Please feel free to try.

Without spending much time, the defined terms are the most obvious change that I'd make if I were starting over. Although we all know what "loose impediment" means because we've been playing for a long time, "debris" would be a more straightforward word for it. Likewise, "through the green" could be "the course, other than greens, tees, and hazards." These are just the ones that come to mind right away.

People that have been playing by the rules for long enough to use these terms know what they mean, but the time to learn it would be shorter if the terminology weren't so archaic.

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, Baog said:

 Although we all know what "loose impediment" means because we've been playing for a long time, "debris" would be a more straightforward word for it..

How would you classify a cigarette end or sweet/candy wrapper? Surely they are debris if abandoned but not if being set aside whilst the smoker makes his stroke or wrapped around a sweet waiting to be unwrapped.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Baog said:

Without spending much time, the defined terms are the most obvious change that I'd make if I were starting over. Although we all know what "loose impediment" means because we've been playing for a long time, "debris" would be a more straightforward word for it.

You'd still have to define "debris," though, and I don't agree that "debris" is any closer to the way it's defined in the RoG than "loose impediments." Plus, you'd still need the word "loose" because some debris could be attached or immovable.

1 hour ago, Baog said:

Likewise, "through the green" could be "the course, other than greens, tees, and hazards." These are just the ones that come to mind right away.

That's not any shorter, and once you know what "through the green" means, you don't have to keep looking it up.

This is like saying we should rename bogey to "one over par." But then someone will point out that people don't know what par is, so now bogey becomes "one over what an expert is expected to make on a hole."

1 hour ago, Baog said:

People that have been playing by the rules for long enough to use these terms know what they mean, but the time to learn it would be shorter if the terminology weren't so archaic.

Everything has its own language. As I pointed out above, even "par" and "bogey" are words golfers learn. Literally everything has its own language, though… cooking, plastics manufacturing, teaching, shipping, table tennis… candle making, etc.

5 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

How would you classify a cigarette end or sweet/candy wrapper? Surely they are debris if abandoned but not if being set aside whilst the smoker makes his stroke or wrapped around a sweet waiting to be unwrapped.

To argue against myself, he could use the same definition as "loose impediments" and just call it "debris," but to flip back again I still don't know if that's any clearer.

[Rulesman]

• If the cart is being moved, it's the equipment of the guy moving it.
• If it's stationary, it's the equipment of the guy who hit the ball.

Superficially it seems ok but it isn't comprehensive. There is no mention of caddies, partners or fellow competitors.

It demonstrates the problem of over-simplification

 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

It demonstrates the problem of over-simplification

Yup.

[Baog]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

Everything has its own language. As I pointed out above, even "par" and "bogey" are words golfers learn. Literally everything has its own language, though… cooking, plastics manufacturing, teaching, shipping, table tennis… candle making, etc.

I agree with this. I also agree that the rules are written in a way that is not any more ambiguous than necessary. Nevertheless, the terminology and phrasing is often awkward, for historical reasons, and a complete rewrite would make it easier to understand for folks new to the game. The nuance may take just as long to grasp fully but one could get the gist of the rules more easily if they were redone. I'm under no illusion that this will ever happen.

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, Baog said:

I agree with this. I also agree that the rules are written in a way that is not any more ambiguous than necessary. Nevertheless, the terminology and phrasing is often awkward, for historical reasons, and a complete rewrite would make it easier to understand for folks new to the game. The nuance may take just as long to grasp fully but one could get the gist of the rules more easily if they were redone. I'm under no illusion that this will ever happen.

I disagree.

And if it were to happen, the rules would likely only get a good amount longer, as "simpler" words were used when more concise (though as you want to call them "awkward") words are used now.

You want to replace "loose impediments" with "debris" but I am of this opinion:

• If you call something "loose impediments" and that word sounds new and unique and "awkward," people will not assume they know what it means. They'll look it up.
• If you call something "debris" when it's really not debris, people will say "I know what debris is!" and arrive at the wrong rulings because they assumed they knew what a word was.

That's often why words or phrases are coined - because no other existing word or phrase means exactly what it needs to say in this context.

And it's fine if we disagree on this. I'm just stating my position, and you yours. It's an opinion; we can't be right or wrong.

[Baog]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

• If you call something "loose impediments" and that word sounds new and unique and "awkward," people will not assume they know what it means. They'll look it up.
• If you call something "debris" when it's really not debris, people will say "I know what debris is!" and arrive at the wrong rulings because they assumed they knew what a word was.

Good point.

[Fourputt]

4 hours ago, Baog said:

Without spending much time, the defined terms are the most obvious change that I'd make if I were starting over. Although we all know what "loose impediment" means because we've been playing for a long time, "debris" would be a more straightforward word for it. Likewise, "through the green" could be "the course, other than greens, tees, and hazards." These are just the ones that come to mind right away.

People that have been playing by the rules for long enough to use these terms know what they mean, but the time to learn it would be shorter if the terminology weren't so archaic.

That would be like changing "end zone" to "that 10 yard area of the field where if the player with the ball crosses the goal line into it, he scores.  Instead we call it the end zone and everyone who spends much time watching football knows what that means.

It's no different with golf, except that for some reason I've never been able to quite fathom, most golfers resist learning more than the rudiments about the game they play.  They can tell you which second baseman had the highest batting average three years ago in the National League, but they have almost no idea how to correctly take relief when their ball lies on a cart path.

[David in FL]

Yes, the rule book makes sense.

[RickK]

I don't find the Rules hard to understand.  But I have studied them for years, taken every Rules guiz I have come across and spent a lot of time reading the decisions also.  The USGA has some good stuff available on their website to help people understand and learn the Rules.  It does require some time but it definitely helps. 

[Rulesman]

On 11/25/2015, 3:21:13, Covert said:

I am new to golf, and I'm sure this topic has been addressed. But a quick search here didn't find anything. I was an undergraduate English major, and I have an MBA, but I can't make sense out of a lot of the "Rules of Golf" wording. Am I getting cognitively impaired in my old age, or is the book very poorly written? And if the latter, why doesn't anybody clean it up after all these years with thousands, if not millions, of golfers depending on it?

I suspect you, like many others, are confusing 'making sense' with 'there being a lot of them'.

Each rule individually makes sense but they take a lot of reading and if taken too quickly this can cause some confusion.

[NJpatbee]

For a set of rules they are not that hard to understand, and they are supported by a hefty amount of rulings.  It does take some time to understand the rules makers use of terms such as "hazard".  I do not like the definition and penalties associated with hazards as compared to balls that cannot be found or that go over a cliff, but the writers of the rules specified that a hazard can only be sand or water.  So from an English language point of view the narrow golf definition of a hazard does not jive with the dictionary, but then again it doesn't have to. 

[ev780]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:13:11, Covert said:

Okay, thanks. It's ironic that a few books have been published and presumably sold with the premise of making the rule book simpler. I won't say anything more about it here.

Don't be that way.  Own your topic! :)

 

I agree with you somewhat. I have spent a lifetime reading technical writing. Some legal stuff, policies, how to manuals, medical journals, studies, etc etc.  Complicated stuff to read and I am a pretty intelligent guy I think. I have read the rules of golf many times and even a big chunk of the decisions book. I thought I was good on the rules.  I went to the USGA/PGA rules seminar last winter and I totally bombed the final.  Something like a 73%!!  Very humbling experience for a guy who has an easy time on tests.

So we are supposed to know the rules and call penalties on ourselves but the are so many layers to them that it is very difficult to get a complete understanding of them.  I don't necessarily have a solution, just an observation that they are way more complicated than they appear on the surface.

Edited December 6, 2015 by ev780

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, ev780 said:

I agree with you somewhat. I have spent a lifetime reading technical writing. Some legal stuff, policies, how to manuals, medical journals, studies, etc etc.  Complicated stuff to read and I am a pretty intelligent guy I think. I have read the rules of golf many times and even a big chunk of the decisions book. I thought I was good on the rules.  I went to the USGA/PGA rules seminar last winter and I totally bombed the final.  Something like a 73%!!  Very humbling experience for a guy who has an easy time on tests.

So we are supposed to know the rules and call penalties on ourselves but the are so many layers to them that it is very difficult to get a complete understanding of them.  I don't necessarily have a solution, just an observation that they are way more complicated than they appear on the surface.

95% of the rules situations people encounter ARE very simple and straightforward. Better players can often go through a round without having to even think about the rules at all.

[ev780]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

95% of the rules situations people encounter ARE very simple and straightforward. Better players can often go through a round without having to even think about the rules at all.

That a good point. Occasional water hazard, OB and maybe a obstruction decision or two per round would be a lot I suppose.  After that it gets weird.

[Fourputt]

2 minutes ago, ev780 said:

That a good point. Occasional water hazard, OB and maybe a obstruction decision or two per round would be a lot I suppose.  After that it gets weird.

It only gets weird when you don't know the basic rules and procedures that you experience every day on the course.  It's when you breach a rule through ignorance and then have to try and fix it that the rules applications become complicated.  The amount of confusion created is directly related to the amount of ignorance displayed.