Rules Experiment- Testers Wanted

[krupa]

Look at professional pool as a case-study:

The World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) has posted the "official" rules for various games on their website.  However, various tournament organizers like/dislike certain rules, so they have a tournament and say, "well we're going to play 9-ball, but we don't like that you can 'luck in' the 9 so for our tournament you have to call the 9-ball."  (For those who don't know, 9-ball is not a called-shot game.  As long as you contact the lowest numbered ball on the table first, if the 9-ball falls, you win.)

Other tournaments don't like certain rules in 10-ball so they hold tournaments with their own rule variations.

Now when you go to any pool tournament, professional or amateur, you have absolutely no idea what rules you're playing by and everyone just gets more and more upset.

The Professional Pool world is a mess, in part because everyone takes it upon themselves to set up rules they think are better than the published standards.

Now let's address your arguments for why your changes would improve the game...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

In an effort to test some rules that might make the game faster, fairer and easier to understand, I would like The Sand Trap community members to participate in a rules experiment by playing at least one round of golf under the current rules except as noted below.

Faster:

I just came back from playing 9-holes at my local club.   I caught with with three braughs who were having a bromance love fest as they may their way around the course.  They did not acknowlege my existence and did not let me play through. I usually don't mind waiting for people in front of me but...  On a Par 3, they were on the green when one of them addressed the ball, then looked up and started to talking to his friend!   I let them clear the green and drive to the next tee before I even approached my first shot.  When I got to the next tee, they had just finished teeing off!  I let them play that par 4 out entirely before teeing up my ball and I STILL caught up to them taking their se cond shots on the next hole.  This was the 9th hole and they stopped on the fairway to buy something off the drink cart even though they were about to make the turn and drive past the clubhouse." I finished 9 and saw their carts still sitting at the 10th tee.

They were not playing slow because they were following the rules.  They were playing slow because they were d-bags who didn't/couldn't acknowledge that other people were on the course.

Fairer:

The rules apply to everyone equally.  Brunettes don't get one set of rules while single-digit handicaps get another.  The rules apply to everyone equally therefore are already fair.

Easier To Understand:

Introducing variations automatically make things more complicated.  "Are we playing standard USGA rules or MEFree variation?"  "Uh.. MEfree, I guess, but what's the case when you hit it OB?  Do I drop for a penalty or not?" "uh... I can't remember, we'll just drop and move on"  This is what people already do, so why add to the complexity!?

In other words, by creating variations that you think improve the game, you have created "house rules 8-ball" which no one who is serious about pool cares about.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by MEfree

If the rules of golf are as perfect and simple as everyone on this forum thinks they are, then why wouldn't all Pros know the rules 100%?  If some pros don't know the rules 100%, why should we expect guys who play once or twice a month to know them?

Having more common rules (aka similar rule for all hazards/OB/LB and drops) will make it easier for everyone to know and play by the rules.

For those that hate my proposal, play a round and see if it is as bad as you expect.

I don't recall anybody here saying that the rules as they stand currently are either perfect or simple. Look at the thread about the rule change with regards to anchoring, obviously there are a number of people that want that changed which would suggest that they don't think the rules are perfect as they are. And nobody said that they are simple either; golf is a complex game with many different situations that can arrise and the rules must be written in a way that they cover all of those situations. That makes them complex.

Also, your proposed rules aren't any simpler, they are just different. To start, one must now remember the policies for placing the ball and when it's allowed. For example, under your proposal you'd allow a provisional for an OB but not a lost ball. That seems like a subtlety that some would forget and also one that would lead to disagreements on the course when there is a possibility that it could be lost near the OB stakes but not actually OB.  Also, your proposed rule for dropping in the area for a lost ball would lead to some issues as to where the ball is lost. If you're having arguments over how the rule should be applied or where it should be dropped, etc. then the rule isn't simple. I'm not saying that the current rules are simple, just that your's are not either.

That's the thing, even though these situations are similar, they are not the same, therefore they need similar rules, however, not the same rule. In fact, as it is right now, a ball OB and a lost ball work exactly the same; your only option is to replay the shot from the point where the ball was last hit. With hazards you get a few more options because you actually know where the ball is. Your rules have just as much variance because while hazards and OB are treated the same, a lost ball is a little bit different as you are not allowed to hit the provisional.

To be perfectly honest, if your rules were the actual Rules of Golf, I would enjoy golf just as much, however they would not add any more enjoyment to my game. Even if these few changes make the rules slightly simpler, they still don't make them simple and they most definitely do not cover all situations as well as the current rules do which in a way actually makes them more complex. The average weekend hack isn't going to remember these any better than they remember the rules as they are now; and to be honest that doesn't matter anyways. The average weekend hack isn't out there so much to play golf by the rules and turn in a legit score as they are to hit a ball with a stick, drink some beer and hang out with friends. Simpler rules isn't going to change that. I don't think that there is anybody out there that decided they wanted to take the game more seriously, took a look at the rules and then decided against it because they were just too damn confusing.

[MEfree]

Being the high handicapper I am, I track drives (like what if I were allowed to rehit any tee shot), OB etc. Looking at my last few cards, I might improve 10, so instead of 93 I might shoot 83?

Personally, I enjoy trying to extracate myself from these situations. That's the fun part of golf.

For instance, I shanked a drive, and was left with 230 to the green. I tried to see if I could use my 3i to get there. I got close, and I consider that my most enjoyable shot of the round. I also like hitting between trees, not always successful, but really satisfying when I do. Replay would have cost me an extra stroke, and the fun.

I like the current rules because it puts golfers in more fun situations.

How would you improve 10 shots?  The only times when my proposal would save you shots is with an OB, lost ball or the times you might choose to re-hit instead of the current play it as it lies or unplayable options.  The OB/LB re-hit saves you a shot over stroke and distance while other re-hits might save you up to a shot over the stroke and distance unplayable option which I see rarely used.  So, to save 10 shots you are telling me you hit 10 balls a round OB/Lost/Unplayable and still manage to shoot 93?

Faster:

I just came back from playing 9-holes at my local club.   I caught with with three braughs who were having a bromance love fest as they may their way around the course.  They did not acknowlege my existence and did not let me play through. I usually don't mind waiting for people in front of me but...  On a Par 3, they were on the green when one of them addressed the ball, then looked up and started to talking to his friend!   I let them clear the green and drive to the next tee before I even approached my first shot.  When I got to the next tee, they had just finished teeing off!  I let them play that par 4 out entirely before teeing up my ball and I STILL caught up to them taking their second shots on the next hole.  This was the 9th hole and they stopped on the fairway to buy something off the drink cart even though they were about to make the turn and drive past the clubhouse."  I finished 9 and saw their carts still sitting at the 10th tee.

They were not playing slow because they were following the rules.  They were playing slow because they were d-bags who didn't/couldn't acknowledge that other people were on the course.

Fairer:

The rules apply to everyone equally.  Brunettes don't get one set of rules while single-digit handicaps get another.  The rules apply to everyone equally therefore are already fair.

Easier To Understand:

Introducing variations automatically make things more complicated.  "Are we playing standard USGA rules or MEFree variation?"  "Uh.. MEfree, I guess, but what's the case when you hit it OB?  Do I drop for a penalty or not?" "uh... I can't remember, we'll just drop and move on"  This is what people already do, so why add to the complexity!?

In other words, by creating variations that you  think improve the game, you have created "house rules 8-ball" which no one who is serious about pool cares about.

Yes, most of slow play is NOT rules related, but some is.

Fairer is also debatable but placing the ball instead of dropping (possibly multiple times before placing as the pros often do) does make it a bit quicker and takes the luck element out of the drop.

I am not advocating that we have multiple sets of rules and agree that it is best to have 1 set of official rules.  I am just saying that the official rules could be simpler.  Yes, if you already know the current rules, having to learn a new set, even if less complicated, will require a bit of effort.

I don't recall anybody here saying that the rules as they stand currently are either perfect or simple. Look at the thread about the rule change with regards to anchoring, obviously there are a number of people that want that changed which would suggest that they don't think the rules are perfect as they are. And nobody said that they are simple either; golf is a complex game with many different situations that can arrise and the rules must be written in a way that they cover all of those situations. That makes them complex.

Also, your proposed rules aren't any simpler, they are just different. To start, one must now remember the policies for placing the ball and when it's allowed. For example, under your proposal you'd allow a provisional for an OB but not a lost ball. That seems like a subtlety that some would forget and also one that would lead to disagreements on the course when there is a possibility that it could be lost near the OB stakes but not actually OB.  Also, your proposed rule for dropping in the area for a lost ball would lead to some issues as to where the ball is lost. If you're having arguments over how the rule should be applied or where it should be dropped, etc. then the rule isn't simple. I'm not saying that the current rules are simple, just that your's are not either.

That's the thing, even though these situations are similar, they are not the same, therefore they need similar rules, however, not the same rule. In fact, as it is right now, a ball OB and a lost ball work exactly the same; your only option is to replay the shot from the point where the ball was last hit. With hazards you get a few more options because you actually know where the ball is. Your rules have just as much variance because while hazards and OB are treated the same, a lost ball is a little bit different as you are not allowed to hit the provisional.

To be perfectly honest, if your rules were the actual Rules of Golf, I would enjoy golf just as much, however they would not add any more enjoyment to my game. Even if these few changes make the rules slightly simpler, they still don't make them simple and they most definitely do not cover all situations as well as the current rules do which in a way actually makes them more complex. The average weekend hack isn't going to remember these any better than they remember the rules as they are now; and to be honest that doesn't matter anyways. The average weekend hack isn't out there so much to play golf by the rules and turn in a legit score as they are to hit a ball with a stick, drink some beer and hang out with friends. Simpler rules isn't going to change that. I don't think that there is anybody out there that decided they wanted to take the game more seriously, took a look at the rules and then decided against it because they were just too damn confusing.

I think you must have missed some of my other threads if you think nobody on this boards thinks the rules are perfectly fine as they are.

My rules have far fewer options for drops and OB/LB/Hazards so they would definitely be easier for a newbie to learn.  Maybe some of my verbiage could be refined, but the basics behind them are more similar to how many rules ignorant recreational play based on what they think the rules are.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I think you must have missed some of my other threads if you think nobody on this boards thinks the rules are perfectly fine as they are.

My rules have far fewer options for drops and OB/LB/Hazards so they would definitely be easier for a newbie to learn.  Maybe some of my verbiage could be refined, but the basics behind them are more similar to how many rules ignorant recreational play based on what they think the rules are.

It's quite possible that I've missed some of your other threads... you've certainly started enough of them and one or two might have slipped through the cracks.

Also, there is a difference between the rules being "perfectly fine as they are" and being "perfect." And fewer options doesn't necessarily make your rules more simple as sometimes they don't completely cover a situation as well as they should (for example, the lost ball situation near OB). The fact that it is how many people who don't really care about the rules play already is irrelevant. Those people aren't playing by the rules not because they are too complex but simply because they don't care. On top of that, the rules you are suggesting to change are not that hard anyways.

Obviously you're going to disagree with me, which is fine, but I really think you are missing what nearly everybody else is saying. Yes the rules may be a little bit complex at times, but that is needed for golf as there are a number of complex situations that can and will arrise during the course of play. Trying to have a "one size fits all" kind of rule may make it easier some of the times but will also make it a whole lot harder other times.

[newtogolf]

I think the key point the original poster is missing is people that enjoy "golf" appreciate that we play by the same (basically) rules as the pro's.  Those that aren't playing by the rules today are likely doing so because they're not concerned about their score, handicap or playing in tournaments, they are out there to enjoy nature, get some exercise, do some business or have some laughs and won't care any more about your rules than they currently do the USGA's.

What's the end goal here?  Are you trying to build up enough support to petition the USGA to accept your simplified rules or are you trying to create a new game?  I can see it now, friend tells me he shot a 82, and I have to ask, did you play USGA or MEfree rules?

[Lihu]

The 10 shots are a worst case, but if i had a chance to improve with stroke count only I most definitely would.. You said we can replay tee shots even for better lie with no penalty. I rarely hit my second attempts badly. On a drive that gives me a good chance for 240 down the fairway, instead of being behind a tree or worse. My hybrids are pretty good, second shot for sure. I would take it if I can't chip or hit 7i or higher. No stroke penalty, would clearly make things better for me.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Fairer is also debatable but placing the ball instead of dropping (possibly multiple times before placing as the pros often do) does make it a bit quicker and takes the luck element out of the drop.

Why are you so down on the luck factor?  All you want is good luck, with no chance of a bit of bad luck to balance the scales?  To bring back the equilibrium in the game, you would have to add a rule that eliminates benefiting from a good bounce.  Hit a tree and bounce into the fariway?  Sorry Charlie, but now you have to drop behind the tree with a one stroke penalty.

Otherwise, all you do is lower scores by way of a rule change rather than by improving your game.  There's nothing particularly reasonable or logical in your suggestion.

[MEfree]

I think the key point the original poster is missing is people that enjoy "golf" appreciate that we play by the same (basically) rules as the pro's.  Those that aren't playing by the rules today are likely doing so because they're not concerned about their score, handicap or playing in tournaments, they are out there to enjoy nature, get some exercise, do some business or have some laughs and won't care any more about your rules than they currently do the USGA's.

What's the end goal here?  Are you trying to build up enough support to petition the USGA to accept your simplified rules or are you trying to create a new game?  I can see it now, friend tells me he shot a 82, and I have to ask, did you play USGA or MEfree rules?

I agree that some golfers don't care about the current rules and wouldn't bother to learn mine but I also think there are other golfers who think they are playing by the rules, but don't know them as well as they think.  For these type of players, simpler rules would lead to more compliance.

You must have missed this-

I am not advocating that we have multiple sets of rules and agree that it is best to have 1 set of official rules.  I am just saying that the official rules could be simpler.

Why are you so down on the luck factor?  All you want is good luck, with no chance of a bit of bad luck to balance the scales?  To bring back the equilibrium in the game, you would have to add a rule that eliminates benefiting from a good bounce.  Hit a tree and bounce into the fariway?  Sorry Charlie, but now you have to drop behind the tree with a one stroke penalty.

Otherwise, all you do is lower scores by way of a rule change rather than by improving your game.  There's nothing particularly reasonable or logical in your suggestion.

I understand that golf will always have a luck factor and realize that you can't eliminate this completely- i.e. I wouldn't propose a rule that you have to take a stroke penalty for hitting a tree and bouncing into the fairway just as I wouldn't say that if you hit that same tree and bounce OB, that you get a free mulligan.

OTOH, I think a bit less of a luck factor is better than more of a luck factor.  Do you ever hear golfers say "I love that golf course- it has so many random bounces and holes that resemble mini golf that I actually have a chance to beat a player who is much better than me"?  Isn't it much more common to hear someone say that they like a course because it is fair?

[iacas]

Do you ever hear golfers say "I love that golf course- it has so many random bounces

Yes. Ever played the Old Course? :-P Do you ever stop to wonder why you are fighting almost everyone all the time with your rules threads?

[14ledo81]

Yes. Ever played the Old Course? :-P Do you ever stop to wonder why you are fighting almost everyone all the time with your rules threads?

I don't think he fights with everybody, rather the more "serious" golfers. There may be more guys like me that these proposed rule changes would not bother, but they don't take the time to post. For myself, I don't think these rule changes would affect me much. I rarely play by the rules anyway. I usually play by myself and will many times hit another ball (while still playing the first), practice the bunker shot again, etc...

[MEfree]

Yes.

Ever played the Old Course?

Do you ever stop to wonder why you are fighting almost everyone all the time with your rules threads?

Yes and I enjoyed it a lot but not because of the occasional random bounce I may have gotten.

As far as the second question goes, I think 14ledo81 makes a very good point- "almost everyone" is the vocal minority of golfers who know 100% of the rules and post here on TST.

[David in FL]

Yes and I enjoyed it a lot but not because of the occasional random bounce I may have gotten. As far as the second question goes, I think 14ledo81 makes a very good point- "almost everyone" is the vocal minority of golfers who know 100% of the rules and post here on TST.

And since 14ledo81 admits that he rarely plays by the rules anyway, a change in the rules would have no affect on him.....

[RandallT]

MEfree,

As a relatively new guy here, I enjoy reading your thorough posts on rules. I, for one, love that you have no fear posting this stuff. You question the rules all the time, and bring up more odd situations than anyone I've ever met. If nothing else, I learn a lot from the exchanges, so I thank you!

I'm might be your target demographic for this issue here, actually. I've been playing two seasons, and I'm only now at the point where I could even consider playing in a tournament. Do I know the rules completely and list off the top of my head which drops are one club, which are two. No.  Do I return to the tee if I can't find a ball that was clearly hit in the rough? No. Shame on me. But I'm the guy who is learning a swing, and plays mostly by the rules.

Here's my feedback on the rules change, however... even a guy like me aspires to one day learn the rules, as they exist today. It is an aspiration to be a part of that crazy tradition. I consider myself reasonable intelligent, and I think I can figure it out and learn from all the crazy rulings. I'd be honored to soon be one of the rules geeks here, but I'm not quite there in skill or experience.

So my bottom line: I do not see the point in petitioning for rules changes that are not terribly essential.

As a lame metaphor: would the US be better off without 50 states of bizarrely different populations and geographic sizes? Probably.  Why not petition to have 25 states of equal population and equal size, so that Congress represents the people more simply and effectively? It's because of tradition and history- the crazy way the country was built piece by piece, each step along the way trying to be the best addition possible.  It's a big mess, but it works.

Seems like the rules of golf just keep evolving by adding new things, but there will rarely be momentum to ever do a large scale revision in the name of simplicity. There's too much history and tradition (not to mention organizational roadblocks to change).

Even if change were possible, I like the idea that playing by these rules ties me to the past and to the traditions of golf. I'd rather live within the current system and do my best to live up to those rules and ideals over the coming years than to push for large changes. My level of skill and experience would never be the type of golfer to run around demanding changes to golf anyway. I haven't earned that right yet. That change must come from the seasoned golfers in the system, and I have a hunch they are mostly fine with things and have other things on their plate.

So again, I do not see the point of petitioning for rules changes personally, but I do admire your passion. I hope to keep learning tidbits from the things you bring up. I hope the chorus of people giving you grief doesn't get to you. I think it's a great read and highly entertaining to see one of your threads.

[Shindig]

Yes and I enjoyed it a lot but not because of the occasional random bounce I may have gotten.

I think you're misunderstanding his point. He wasn't claiming that someone would say "wow, what a weird bounce; no wonder I enjoy this game!" Part of the joy of golf is that you can't plan for everything. I don't have much in the way of luck affecting me at my job, or when I play duplicate bridge, or when I watch a movie with friends. I can plan for most things that will happen in those cases. I can't in golf - and that's part of the fun, both when it helps me and when it hurts me.

[turtleback]

I don't think he fights with everybody, rather the more "serious" golfers. There may be more guys like me that these proposed rule changes would not bother, but they don't take the time to post.

For myself, I don't think these rule changes would affect me much. I rarely play by the rules anyway. I usually play by myself and will many times hit another ball (while still playing the first), practice the bunker shot again, etc...

Why should the rules be changed for the benefit of people who do not now follow the old rules and who, in all likelihood, wouldn't follow the new rules either?

Yes and I enjoyed it a lot but not because of the occasional random bounce I may have gotten.

As far as the second question goes, I think 14ledo81 makes a very good point- "almost everyone" is the vocal minority of golfers who know 100% of the rules and post here on TST.

No he inadvertently makes the opposite point.  He doesn't play by the rules and doesn't really care about playing by the rules.  So why should the rules be changed for him and guys like him?  The reality is that most people who play a round of golf during a given year do not break 100.  Should we change the game to accommodate them as well?

If you don't want to play by the rules then don't play by the rules.  It really is THAT simple.  But leave those of us who choose to play the game by the rules alone and leave the rules alone.

[MEfree]

MEfree,

As a relatively new guy here, I enjoy reading your thorough posts on rules. I, for one, love that you have no fear posting this stuff. You question the rules all the time, and bring up more odd situations than anyone I've ever met. If nothing else, I learn a lot from the exchanges, so I thank you!

I'm might be your target demographic for this issue here, actually. I've been playing two seasons, and I'm only now at the point where I could even consider playing in a tournament. Do I know the rules completely and list off the top of my head which drops are one club, which are two. No.  Do I return to the tee if I can't find a ball that was clearly hit in the rough? No. Shame on me. But I'm the guy who is learning a swing, and plays mostly by the rules.

Here's my feedback on the rules change, however... even a guy like me aspires to one day learn the rules, as they exist today. It is an aspiration to be a part of that crazy tradition. I consider myself reasonable intelligent, and I think I can figure it out and learn from all the crazy rulings. I'd be honored to soon be one of the rules geeks here, but I'm not quite there in skill or experience.

So my bottom line: I do not see the point in petitioning for rules changes that are not terribly essential.

As a lame metaphor: would the US be better off without 50 states of bizarrely different populations and geographic sizes? Probably.  Why not petition to have 25 states of equal population and equal size, so that Congress represents the people more simply and effectively? It's because of tradition and history- the crazy way the country was built piece by piece, each step along the way trying to be the best addition possible.  It's a big mess, but it works.

Seems like the rules of golf just keep evolving by adding new things, but there will rarely be momentum to ever do a large scale revision in the name of simplicity. There's too much history and tradition (not to mention organizational roadblocks to change).

Even if change were possible, I like the idea that playing by these rules ties me to the past and to the traditions of golf. I'd rather live within the current system and do my best to live up to those rules and ideals over the coming years than to push for large changes. My level of skill and experience would never be the type of golfer to run around demanding changes to golf anyway. I haven't earned that right yet. That change must come from the seasoned golfers in the system, and I have a hunch they are mostly fine with things and have other things on their plate.

So again, I do not see the point of petitioning for rules changes personally, but I do admire your passion. I hope to keep learning tidbits from the things you bring up. I hope the chorus of people giving you grief doesn't get to you. I think it's a great read and highly entertaining to see one of your threads.

Thanks for a well thought out post Randall.  In terms of the bold section- I 100% agree that the Rules of Golf (like the U.S. Tax Code) keep evolving by adding new things, but why not occasionally try to simplify?  If you only add, but never simplify, the rules just get harder and harder for each new generation to learn?

Remember the first set of published rules of golf were 13 rules on 1 page which allowed the player to tee it up after taking a 1 shot penalty when removing a ball from water.

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.

These original rules also seemed to have a basis for a more clear cut definition of what constituted a stroke- not starting intent on the downswing, but rather, having it start on the back swing-

11. If you draw your Club in Order to Strike, & proceed so far in the Stroke as to be bringing down your Club; If then, your Club shall break, in any way, it is to be Accounted a Stroke.

It seems like the principle behind this would have made Paula Creamer (and a recent match play opponent of mine) count the shot when her ball fell off the tee during her back swing.

At different points in the History of Golf players have been able to tee up the ball when taking stroke and distance for lost ball/OB from anywhere on the course.  At multiple times in golf history, it has been stroke only with no distance penalty or distance only with no penalty shot- for those paying attention, this should sound similar to what I am proposing?  Briefly it was 3 strokes plus distance but I am not proposing that. http://www.ruleshistory.com/lost.html

My point is that there have been changes to the rules throughout the history of the game, so why do we assume that the current rules perfectly represent the "tradition" and "history" of the game?

[phan52]

Dumb idea. How in the world would you know where to play from if you lost a ball? And I don't see how droppng instead of placing slows down play. All it does is give the guy with a ball in his hand an advantage.

For those reasons, I am out.

[Fourputt]

Dumb idea. How in the world would you know where to play from if you lost a ball? And I don't see how droppng instead of placing slows down play. All it does is give the guy with a ball in his hand an advantage.

For those reasons, I am out.

It actually gives the guy taking a penalty an advantage over the guy who hit a good shot and has to play his ball as it lies.  Really dumb idea.

Remember the first set of published rules of golf were 13 rules on 1 page which allowed the player to tee it up after taking a 1 shot penalty when removing a ball from water.

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.

These original rules also seemed to have a basis for a more clear cut definition of what constituted a stroke- not starting intent on the downswing, but rather, having it start on the back swing-

11. If you draw your Club in Order to Strike, & proceed so far in the Stroke as to be bringing down your Club; If then, your Club shall break, in any way, it is to be Accounted a Stroke.

It seems like the principle behind this would have made Paula Creamer (and a recent match play opponent of mine) count the shot when her ball fell off the tee during her back swing.

At different points in the History of Golf players have been able to tee up the ball when taking stroke and distance for lost ball/OB from anywhere on the course.  At multiple times in golf history, it has been stroke only with no distance penalty or distance only with no penalty shot- for those paying attention, this should sound similar to what I am proposing?  Briefly it was 3 strokes plus distance but I am not proposing that.  http://www.ruleshistory.com/lost.html

My point is that there have been changes to the rules throughout the history of the game, so why do we assume that the current rules perfectly represent the "tradition" and "history" of the game?

They have reorganized and condensed the rules on more than one occasion to make a more reasonable and logical progression.  Study more about rules history than just the 1744 rules and you will see that.

Buy and read THIS book (just $2.00) and measure each of your proposals against that before you post your next thread.  The USGA used to have another good book on the history of the changes and evolution of the Rules of Golf, but it doesn't show on their website any more.  I gave away my copy when we moved down here, but if you can find it, that too will open your eyes to the reality and the impracticality of what you keep asking.