MEfree Challenge: New Rules of Golf - Simplified but not Fundamentally Changed

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by mad max

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Why? Because OB is off of the course, hazards are still part of the course. It makes sense to be penalized more for hitting the ball to a place that is off of the course.

I don't know about you but where I am from course's sometimes put O.B. in the middle of the course because of space limitations or a design flaw.

That's irrelevant.  Even though such internal OB markings are a poor idea, the result is the same.  You are not on a part of the course which is in bounds for the hole you are playing, thus your stroke has left your ball out of play.  You should be required to play from the same spot until such time as you have again put a ball in play.

It's obvious that this thread is sliding down that same slippery slope that all such discussions devolve into.  Those of you who want these poorly considered changes refuse to acknowledge that the game needs to adhere to its fundamental principles.  You eschew the logic which connects each rule to all of the others.  You look at each rule as a separate entity which can be changed, manipulated, and rewritten to your taste without realizing that you have broken its link in the chain of reasoning which created the rule in the first place.

Those of us who are opposed to such butchery can look at a rule and know why it is written as it is because of its relationship to those basic principles, and we see the logic which ties the rules all together.  We have a fundamental disconnect which no amount of discussion is going to resolve.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It's obvious that this thread is sliding down that same slippery slope that all such discussions devolve into.  Those of you who want these poorly considered changes refuse to acknowledge that the game needs to adhere to its fundamental principles.  You eschew the logic which connects each rule to all of the others.  You look at each rule as a separate entity which can be changed, manipulated, and rewritten to your taste without realizing that you have broken its link in the chain of reasoning which created the rule in the first place.

Those of us who are opposed to such butchery can look at a rule and know why it is written as it is because of its relationship to those basic principles, and we see the logic which ties the rules all together.  We have a fundamental disconnect which no amount of discussion is going to resolve.

Yes, but to be fair ... that is the whole point of this thread.  And while I certainly have no problem with the rules as they are, it's a fun little exercise in thinking outside the box and looking at alternatives.

Also, I think it's a little unfair to scoff at Mefree's ideas as being silly, and calling it "butchery" and "illogical" while at the same time commending rule changes involving anchored putters and square grooves.  The same argument stands for these rules just as it stands for the anchored putter rules, and that is, they are ALL silly, made up rules, because its a silly, made up game.  Just like every other game out there.

Here's another example of the disconnect some of us feel exists between hazards and OB:  the ocean holes at Pebble Beach.  I can slice one 50 yards into the ocean (And I know that anything past the mean high tide line can't possibly be part of the course property) and still drop at the edge of the hazard, however, reusing my example from earlier, I can hit one 10 yards right of the fairway on perfectly playable mulch with a clean shot to the green, and I have to go back to the tee because somebody decided that I shouldn't play from there.

Do I really want to change the rules?  No, absolutely not.  However, I don't think that simply changing the OB rule to the same penalty as an ESA hazard is that ridiculous or out of the realm, and I think that, in the context of this thread, a little bit of discussion is warranted.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by mad max

I don't know about you but where I am from course's sometimes put O.B. in the middle of the course because of space limitations or a design flaw.

It may not be off of the property owned by the course and in fact (on a poorly designed course) may even be on another hole, but for the purposes of the hole you are on, the ball is not on the course.

The people who designed the course took the time to say that certain areas of the course are in play and certain areas are not. I think that if you hit to an area deemed not to be in play the penalty should be stiffer than hitting into a hazard that is in play.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Do I really want to change the rules?  No, absolutely not.  However, I don't think that simply changing the OB rule to the same penalty as an ESA hazard is that ridiculous or out of the realm, and I think that, in the context of this thread, a little bit of discussion is warranted.

I agree that the rules are good as they are and should stay; however I would be more open to changing the OB rule if it called for a two stroke penalty.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Yes, but to be fair ... that is the whole point of this thread.  And while I certainly have no problem with the rules as they are, it's a fun little exercise in thinking outside the box and looking at alternatives.

Also, I think it's a little unfair to scoff at Mefree's ideas as being silly, and calling it "butchery" and "illogical" while at the same time commending rule changes involving anchored putters and square grooves.  The same argument stands for these rules just as it stands for the anchored putter rules, and that is, they are ALL silly, made up rules, because its a silly, made up game.  Just like every other game out there.

Here's another example of the disconnect some of us feel exists between hazards and OB:  the ocean holes at Pebble Beach.  I can slice one 50 yards into the ocean (And I know that anything past the mean high tide line can't possibly be part of the course property) and still drop at the edge of the hazard, however, reusing my example from earlier, I can hit one 10 yards right of the fairway on perfectly playable mulch with a clean shot to the green, and I have to go back to the tee because somebody decided that I shouldn't play from there.

Do I really want to change the rules?  No, absolutely not.  However, I don't think that simply changing the OB rule to the same penalty as an ESA hazard is that ridiculous or out of the realm, and I think that, in the context of this thread, a little bit of discussion is warranted.

Very well, you guys have your fun and I'll just stick to the serious rules threads.  The point of this exercise was to create a simplified set of rules without making a significant change in the game.  We can't refute these proposed "changes" without delving into the basic tenets which golf is based on.  Since those arguments don't hold water for this discussion, I'll bow out for now.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

It may not be off of the property owned by the course and in fact (on a poorly designed course) may even be on another hole, but for the purposes of the hole you are on, the ball is not on the course.

The people who designed the course took the time to say that certain areas of the course are in play and certain areas are not. I think that if you hit to an area deemed not to be in play the penalty should be stiffer than hitting into a hazard that is in play.

You are going to laugh at me here, but this particular sentence stood out to me.  I've never really thought of OB in this context; that the people who designed the course chose to consider certain areas off limits intentionally to force you to consider them as part of your strategy.  Just as they chose to put a bunker here and a pond there.  Makes perfect sense, and I REALLY have no qualms with the rule considering it this way.

I guess I've always thought that OB was just a necessary evil that the course OWNERS (and the neighboring property owners) deemed necessary for reasons other than course design, but rather just logistics, and legal reasons.  It is this sense that I think it's arbitrary that OB 10 yards off of one hole is more penal than a hazard 40 yards off another.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Very well, you guys have your fun and I'll just stick to the serious rules threads.  The point of this exercise was to create a simplified set of rules without making a significant change in the game.  We can't refute these proposed "changes" without delving into the basic tenets which golf is based on.  Since those arguments don't hold water for this discussion, I'll bow out for now.

Fair enough.  We obviously disagree on how significant of a change this would be.  I think it would be quite insignificant (and, heck, that's part of the reason why I wouldn't really want it changed), and you don't.  Can't argue with that.  Cheers.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

The penalty for hitting the ball off of the course should be more severe than hitting the ball into a hazard.

I'm sorry, but as others have already stated, I have an issue with this. I understand the fundamental principal here, but question it's application. On an up and back wide open cow pasture layout, I could slice my shot off the tee 100 yards right across 2 other fairways and still play it with no penalty. But most courses here are closely lined with resort condos or homes. And I could just slightly push my drive, have it land IN THE FAIRWAY, and bound across 5 yards of rough, an asphalt cart path and be next to an OB stake just because the course is lined with condos. I fail to see how missing a fairway by 5-10 yards should require a stiffer penalty than slicing your drive 50 yards off target, just because the course decided to build condos along every single hole. I know the suggestion, play away from the OB. Yes, obviously. And I take every precaution in order to do exactly that. Usually resulting in a straight pull down the left to avoid any interaction with the condos on the right. But I just can't believe that the spirit of the rules are being followed with OB stakes placed everywhere on the course because of condos. There are plenty of courses here where the course itself winds through an entire community. In many situations both sides of the hole are marked OB the entire length to keep you out of people's yards. Is this really how the rules were intended??

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by MyrtleBeachGolf

I'm sorry, but as others have already stated, I have an issue with this. I understand the fundamental principal here, but question it's application. On an up and back wide open cow pasture layout, I could slice my shot off the tee 100 yards right across 2 other fairways and still play it with no penalty. But most courses here are closely lined with resort condos or homes. And I could just slightly push my drive, have it land IN THE FAIRWAY, and bound across 5 yards of rough, an asphalt cart path and be next to an OB stake just because the course is lined with condos.

I fail to see how missing a fairway by 5-10 yards should require a stiffer penalty than slicing your drive 50 yards off target, just because the course decided to build condos along every single hole.

I know the suggestion, play away from the OB. Yes, obviously. And I take every precaution in order to do exactly that. Usually resulting in a straight pull down the left to avoid any interaction with the condos on the right. But I just can't believe that the spirit of the rules are being followed with OB stakes placed everywhere on the course because of condos. There are plenty of courses here where the course itself winds through an entire community. In many situations both sides of the hole are marked OB the entire length to keep you out of people's yards. Is this really how the rules were intended??

Now you're advocating different rules because of the design of an individual, or group of golf courses.....  I have the same type of courses down here.  Don't care for it either, but that's not the fault of the rules, but the designer/developer.  The ones I don't care to play, I don't play.

But again, the OP is about simplifying the rules.  Not changing rules just because we don't like any one individually.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I am 99.9% convinced that purists like Erik and 4putt will feel that these modifications represent a fundamental change to the game.

Then this makes the entire discussion a non-starter. You were tasked with not fundamentally changing the game.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I feel that they would result in less of a fundamental change in the game than the technological advancements we have seen throughout the years.

Straw man.

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

And, FWIW, this doesn't meet the challenge. By your own admission these rules are different and therefore does not keep the game fundamentally the same.

Yup.

---

To those who want to argue that OB shouldn't be a stiffer penalty, it's simply a matter of gradation. You aren't penalized when you put the ball 50 yards right of a green, but leave it short and maybe you're in a bunker or a water hazard.

The game of golf has gradations of penalty. Hit it in the fairway, no penalty. Hit it in the wrong side of the fairway for a green that slopes left to right, perhaps a quarter of a shot penalty. Hit it in the light rough, half a shot. Hit it in the thick rough, 3/4 shot. Hit it in the trees, or a bunker, full shot. Hit it in a water hazard, often more than 1 shot since you're dropping in the rough. Hit it OB, two shots, effectively.

The shot that you slice into another fairway is at least STILL IN PLAY. The shot you hit into someone's back yard is OUT OF PLAY.

In football it doesn't matter if a guy fumbles after receiving a 60-yard pass and running 20 yards, or if they fumble the handoff behind the line of scrimmage. Both are fumbles. But if a player drops the ball out of bounds, well, there's not even a word for that - the play's already done because he's no longer on the playing field.

Some players may plan to miss the ball another fairway over. It's still going to result in a penalty of some kind - a longer second shot, the possibility of being blocked by trees, being in thick rough, etc. But players who hit their ball off the course suffer a stiffer penalty.

This thread is, as I said, pretty much a non-starter. MEFree, you've been tasked with "simplifying" the rules without fundamentally changing the game. Your "simpler" rules fundamentally change the game about twelve times over.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Fair enough.  We obviously disagree on how significant of a change this would be.  I think it would be quite insignificant (and, heck, that's part of the reason why I wouldn't really want it changed), and you don't.  Can't argue with that.  Cheers.

I think the bottom line is that change is change, regardless of how significant. The fundamentals are changed based on these proposed rules changes and the discussion really is now just about "I made up new rules for golf which change the way the game is played, but not really, who's with me?".

I applaud the effort, but the result is not consistent with the initial "challenge" and therefore is entirely null and void.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by iacas

This thread is, as I said, pretty much a non-starter. MEFree, you've been tasked with "simplifying" the rules without fundamentally changing the game. Your "simpler" rules fundamentally change the game about twelve times over.

Ok, so which 5 Keys to the Golf Swing would change?  What changes to Evolvr's online lessons would you make if these rules were implemented tomorrow?  Who do you think would be OWGR #1 a year after these rules were implemented?

My point is that while these rules are fundamentally different than the current rules, the game is still basically the same- hitting a little white ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible. I will concede that with a lesser OB penalty, some players might be a bit more aggressive on some holes, but most players will likely play most holes the same way they currently do.  To me, the rules provide a framework for the game, but they are NOT the fundamental essence of the game.

[dsc123]

I don't think its that big of a change if you play OB and lost balls as a drop within 2 club lengths of where it went out.  Pros rarely hit the ball OB.  Single digit HC's do it less than once a round, so maybe it would make a difference of one stroke every three rounds?  Mid-cappers might do it once a round. high cappers might do it a few times.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The OP has documented the set of rules many newbies and casual golfers use when they play, let's call it FunGolf.  I commend the effort but the overall problem is, these rules aren't golf, so those that play FunGolf will have a difficult time transitioning to real golf.  If they maintain a handicap under FunGolf, it will be meaningless in real golf.

All that said, maybe this is the direction golf can consider to attract more golfers along with some of the ideas that Jack and Arnie have suggested, like 12 holes instead of 18 and a larger cup size.  I wouldn't be interested in playing FunGolf, but I can see how this could be a version of golf for people who want the overall experience without all the rules, just as those who don't want to or aren't able to play fast pitch baseball turn to slow pitch softball in their later years.

Originally Posted by dsc123

I don't think its that big of a change if you play OB and lost balls as a drop within 2 club lengths of where it went out.  Pros rarely hit the ball OB.  Single digit HC's do it less than once a round, so maybe it would make a difference of one stroke every three rounds?  Mid-cappers might do it once a round. high cappers might do it a few times.

When you combined these two posts, you have a good bit of the logic behind my proposed rules-  Most pros don't hit it OB very often and most casual golfers don't follow the current set of rules.

Even with low to mid handicap players, I almost never see a player go back to the tee if it turns out their ball is lost or OB when they did not hit a provisional outside of tournament play.

The rules I proposed are much closer to what I see the majority of golfers doing on an everyday basis than the current rules.

[dsc123]

The stroke and distance is a problem, in my opinion.  And I think it comes up more often with lost balls than OB.  I played in a tournament where the ranger was already on us, the group behind us was on the tee, and someone in my group couldn't find his ball.  Going back to the tee was a terrible option for everyone.  It was match play and his opponent just told him to drop and take a 2 stroke penalty, so that it was as if he hit his second ball to about the are where his first was lost.

My course has very few OB areas in play, but every now and then I'll hit a ball off line but safe, but then I can't find the ball.  Its frustrating sometimes because it might just be that I'm looking in the wrong spot, it might be that somebody took it, or it could be right under my nose but hidden in the rough.  Since I hit it to a safe area, I didn't hit a provisional.  This is where my biggest frustration comes with the rules--stroke and distance is overly penal in that situation.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by dsc123

I played in a tournament where the ranger was already on us, the group behind us was on the tee, and someone in my group couldn't find his ball.  Going back to the tee was a terrible option for everyone.  It was match play and his opponent just told him to drop and take a 2 stroke penalty, so that it was as if he hit his second ball to about the are where his first was lost.

So did both players get disqualified?

1-3 . Agreement To Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 1-3 :

Match play – Disqualification of both sides ;

Stroke play – Disqualification of competitors concerned.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by MEfree

When you combined these two posts, you have a good bit of the logic behind my proposed rules-  Most pros don't hit it OB very often and most casual golfers don't follow the current set of rules.

Even with low to mid handicap players, I almost never see a player go back to the tee if it turns out their ball is lost or OB when they did not hit a provisional outside of tournament play.

The rules I proposed are much closer to what I see the majority of golfers doing on an everyday basis than the current rules.

So the justification for changing the rules is now that too many people don't follow the rules?  Most recreational players roll the ball, take mulligans, and give themselves putts.  Do we change the rules to accommodate them all, in the name of simplicity?  Or is it appeasement?

As for those that don't go back to the tee if they've failed to hit a provisional outside of a tournament, the rules already accommodate that.  Post ESC and move on.  No harm, no foul......and certainly not complicated.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyrtleBeachGolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85




The penalty for hitting the ball off of the course should be more severe than hitting the ball into a hazard.

I'm sorry, but as others have already stated, I have an issue with this. I understand the fundamental principal here, but question it's application. On an up and back wide open cow pasture layout, I could slice my shot off the tee 100 yards right across 2 other fairways and still play it with no penalty. But most courses here are closely lined with resort condos or homes. And I could just slightly push my drive, have it land IN THE FAIRWAY, and bound across 5 yards of rough, an asphalt cart path and be next to an OB stake just because the course is lined with condos.

I fail to see how missing a fairway by 5-10 yards should require a stiffer penalty than slicing your drive 50 yards off target, just because the course decided to build condos along every single hole.

I know the suggestion, play away from the OB. Yes, obviously. And I take every precaution in order to do exactly that. Usually resulting in a straight pull down the left to avoid any interaction with the condos on the right. But I just can't believe that the spirit of the rules are being followed with OB stakes placed everywhere on the course because of condos. There are plenty of courses here where the course itself winds through an entire community. In many situations both sides of the hole are marked OB the entire length to keep you out of people's yards. Is this really how the rules were intended??

I've played many such courses over the years, and the ones which didn't leave enough land to make a proper golf course I only play once.  I agree that such courses aren't much fun for the average player, so I don't play them.  I've played a few residential courses which do leave enough room to route the holes through the development even though there is out of bound on both sides of the hole.  While that type of course may not be my preferred style, I can deal with it.

When you must play that kind of course, you modify your game to fit.  If you are one of those players who is long and often crooked, then I suggest when you play a tight course, you change your style.  Play a shorter tee, use FW woods or irons instead of driver, and find a way to manage your game so the the course becomes more playable.  Changing a rule because you don't like the way it fits on some courses just doesn't make any sense.  It's much more logical to adjust your game to suit the track.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

This thread is, as I said, pretty much a non-starter. MEFree, you've been tasked with "simplifying" the rules without fundamentally changing the game. Your "simpler" rules fundamentally change the game about twelve times over.

Ok, so which 5 Keys to the Golf Swing would change?  What changes to Evolvr's online lessons would you make if these rules were implemented tomorrow?  Who do you think would be OWGR #1 a year after these rules were implemented?

My point is that while these rules are fundamentally different than the current rules, the game is still basically the same- hitting a little white ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible. I will concede that with a lesser OB penalty, some players might be a bit more aggressive on some holes, but most players will likely play most holes the same way they currently do.  To me, the rules provide a framework for the game, but they are NOT the fundamental essence of the game.

Here is the disconnect.  You feel that the rules are not fundamental to the game.  I dispute that.  The rules ARE the game.  They are what define the game.  And the basic fundamental principles of the game are what determine how far those rules can stray without it becoming a different game.  For an "invented game" (like baseball for instance), the rules may have been built to fit a basic premise.

I don't know how much evolution over time may have affected how baseball is played (the only significant rules change I know of is the DH bastardization by the American League), but when someone decided to make it easier for the ordinary Joe to play, he added a bigger ball, shorter base paths, a different pitching method.  As a result, it was no longer baseball - it became softball.  Looks sort of like baseball, but the differences are monumental, even though the goal is still the same, to throw and hit the ball and score runs.

Golf is not an invented game like baseball.  It is almost 100% evolutionary.  It started simply with Scottish shepherds batting balls around the pasture.  Someone else saw that and picked up on it, started playing during leisure time, giving the game some structure in the process.  Since it was still very localized and only played as a simple one on one match format, the rules were simple.  It was a purely local phenomenon, so the rules were just passed around verbally.  Stroke play evolved from match play when a playing club wanted to find a way to play an entire competition in a single day, yet still be able to involve the entire membership.  However, they started to find issues with the game which needed a resolution to make it fair to a large field.  That resulted in 1744 at Edinburgh with the first documented Rules of Golf.  They worked as needed after a fashion, but there were conditions at other clubs which didn't exist at St. Andrews, so those clubs added or modified as necessary to fit their course and conditions.  However, they all still held one thing in common - they all still remained true to the basic concept of the game, and they occasionally got together to compare notes and work toward a more standard set of rules.  For 250 years the stroke game has continued to evolve in a similar manner while still holding true to those roots and adhering to a couple of basic fundamental principles.

I'm not sure just who came up with the concept or when it was applied, but at some point it was determined that penalties should be applied to balance the advantage which might be gained as a result of the breach, rather than just being punishment.  In part it goes back to the original 13 rules (see quote below)  This is why there are one stroke, two strokes, varying distance allowances, and even relief without penalty.

Quote:

5.   If your Ball comes among watter, or any wattery filth, you are at liberty to take out your Ball & bringing it behind the hazard and Teeing it, you may play it with any Club and allow your Adversary a Stroke for so getting out your Ball.

The so called penalty stroke in this case really only represents the stroke you would have taken to pitch out of the hazard had you had the ability to do so. Other penalties are graded in like fashion, and it is quite fundamental that a ball lying in play (but unplayable) in a water hazard on the course should have the potential of a more favorable penalty than a ball which lies out of play, out of bounds.

The modifications which MEFree has so far put forth would create a new game - let's call it "Softgolf", since it relates to golf much as softball relates to baseball.  It may look like golf to an inexperienced eye, but you have already unbalanced a fundamental part of the of the game by messing around with the penalty structure.  I contend that a ball out of bounds is nothing similar to a ball lost in a water hazard.  A lost ball is not remotely like a ball which lies unplayable.  And we haven't even gotten to the obstruction rule yet.

Softgolf may bear a passing similarity to golf, but it ain't golf.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by MEfree

So did both players get disqualified?

I suppose we all should have been, but no.

Originally Posted by David in FL

So the justification for changing the rules is now that too many people don't follow the rules?  Most recreational players roll the ball, take mulligans, and give themselves putts.  Do we change the rules to accommodate them all, in the name of simplicity?  Or is it appeasement?

I'm not sold by this line of thinking.  Rules are created by men to establish a game that people enjoy.  The rule makers think its better to have stroke and distance, some players do not.  Its a debate about what the game should be.  Its no more appeasement than the anchored putting bad is appeasement to its proponents.

Originally Posted by David in FL

As for those that don't go back to the tee if they've failed to hit a provisional outside of a tournament, the rules already accommodate that.  Post ESC and move on.  No harm, no foul......and certainly not complicated.

I am not a rules guru by any stretch, but I think this is wrong.  if you lose a ball, and don't go back to the tee, you're not playing by the rules.  If you're not playing by the rules, then you cannot post your score.  ESC is about handicap calculation, not scoring.

[MEfree]

David is right that a lot of players roll the ball, etc.  I like playing the ball down and do think that hitting from a variety of lies is part of the challenge of the game.  However, I find it interesting that the PGA Tour uses lift/clean/place much more often than I see it posted at my local course- i.e. it has been raiinig/snowing/hailing the past two days and some fairways still have aeration holes but I don't expect to see a winter rules sign if I go out today.  High cappers truly have a hard enough time hitting from good lies, so I understand that the roll the ball to avoid the unneeded extra challenge of hitting from a poor lie in the fairway.

For those that think the current rules are logical and as simple as they can be, what do you make of http://www.examiner.com/article/rules-of-golf-need-overhaul-says-jack-nicklaus ?

it may interest golf’s governing bodies to know that no less an authority than Jack Nicklaus believes the regs need an overhaul.

Change ‘em all . “Probably the whole book of the rules of golf should be changed,” Nicklaus said on Golf Channel’s Morning Drive program Wednesday. “If you try to figure it out, it should be common sense, yet common sense never seems to prevail.”

Nicklaus pointed out the incomprehensibility of some edicts and suggested it was not surprising that players were not fluent in the game’s dos and don’ts. “A USGA rules official said that it was much more difficult to pass the test to be a rules official than it was to pass the bar exam. There’s no reason for that,” he said. “The game should be simple. People should be able to understand the rules and the rules should be common sense.”