"The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard S. Tufts

[David in FL]

I am part way through it.  I've enjoyed the section on how the principles apply to the differences between match and stroke play and why the penalties differ.

Me too.  It really clarifies a lot of situations when you understand that a lot of the differences between match and stroke play simply stem from difference between playing against a single opponent, and playing against an entire field of fellow competitors, all of whom need to be protected......

[Meltdwhiskey]

If you were playing single, would you lift all those times when on green? There are other rules that nowadays "force" you sometimes to pick up. I think I would not like to play with stymie rule in effect.

I would not.  Would you?

[MEfree]

I often don't mark and lift before I putt.  It simply isn't always necessary.

What you have to consider is that Tufts is focusing on the underlying principles, not the actual playing rules.  The rules depart from those principles as necessary to preserve the playability of the game.  The option of marking and lifting the ball from the green didn't come into the rules until greens became more well manicured, to the point that putting was more of a science than a mix of art and luck.   Because of that change in the way courses were maintained, dirt or mud or whatever on the ball had a  more direct and negative effect on play, thus a modification of the principle was reasonable.

This is how most rules evolve, and how the base principles have become separated from actual play in some respects.

I understand why you think the PGA tour overuses lift, clean and place, but your same logic behind allowing mark, lift, clean and replace on the putting green could apply to the manicured fairways the pros play on when combined with their precise shot making ability as mud on the ball can make it more a mixture of art and luck.

[Rulesman]

I suspect one of the reasons the PGA Tour 'overuses' the LCP LR is that they like to have everything on the hard card. eg stones in bunkers, sprinkler heads near greens. They don't want to keep issuing new LR cards for every course they play on. In addition, most events are over four days and if the weather or conditions change at short notice, the introduction of a new LR would cause problems, as pros are notorious for not reading local rules.

[luu5]

What you have to consider is that Tufts is focusing on the underlying principles, not the actual playing rules.  The rules depart from those principles as necessary to preserve the playability of the game.  The option of marking and lifting the ball from the green didn't come into the rules until greens became more well manicured, to the point that putting was more of a science than a mix of art and luck.   Because of that change in the way courses were maintained, dirt or mud or whatever on the ball had a  more direct and negative effect on play, thus a modification of the principle was reasonable.

Good reasoning but it would be great to know the source behind such thinking.

Lifting on green has in different forms been allowed for over one hundred years and in certain cases from late 18th century. So it is not just modern nonsense...

[luu5]

I suspect one of the reasons the PGA Tour 'overuses' the LCP LR is that they like to have everything on the hard card. eg stones in bunkers, sprinkler heads near greens. They don't want to keep issuing new LR cards for every course they play on. In addition, most events are over four days and if the weather or conditions change at short notice, the introduction of a new LR would cause problems, as pros are notorious for not reading local rules.

A good example was Challenge Tour tournament (not PGA Tour I know) from this summer here in Finland where LCP was in place for first two rounds and not during the weekend. Couple of players were caught not reading the rules. One of them scored 64, 73, 84, 63. You can guess which one his rounds had penalties added for the front 9. Without those 10 to 20 extra strokes he could have been at any spot in top 10, now T56...

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What you have to consider is that Tufts is focusing on the underlying principles, not the actual playing rules.  The rules depart from those principles as necessary to preserve the playability of the game.  The option of marking and lifting the ball from the green didn't come into the rules until greens became more well manicured, to the point that putting was more of a science than a mix of art and luck.   Because of that change in the way courses were maintained, dirt or mud or whatever on the ball had a  more direct and negative effect on play, thus a modification of the principle was reasonable.

Good reasoning but it would be great to know the source behind such thinking.

Lifting on green has in different forms been allowed for over one hundred years and in certain cases from late 18th century. So it is not just modern nonsense...

Once the stymie rule was removed, lifting on the green became fairly standard.  Prior to that, such lifting in match play was only allowed if the balls were within 6 inches of each other.  Even in the original 1744 rules there was the first allowance for lifting a ball if it interfered with the play of another, although at that time they had to be touching.  I don't know how they treated it if one was 1/4" away from the other.  In 1807 this was added to the medal play rules for the Edinburgh Burgess Golfing Society:

1.  That the system to be observed is not the Brunonian, but expressly the Leith system, lifting the opponent’s ball if it should in any way obstruct playing to the hole.

It appears to apply to play anywhere outside of what we now call a water hazard.  It's hard to tell for sure because the wording still left a lot of room for misunderstanding.  A lot of the maintenance and record keeping on the rules was still word of mouth.  As far as I can tell, it still did not apply to match play outside of the 6 inch proximity until the stymie rule was repealed.  You can tell from the wording here that they were still battling with different rules procedures for different clubs.

[boil3rmak3r]

I ordered my copy of The Principles today and already have the USGA Rules of Golf.  I wish the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book was a little cheaper.  I wouldn't mind having a physical copy of that, but it shows $13 PLUS $15 in S&H...;  I guess I'll just access the decisions online.

[Rulesman]

Have you tried Amazon?

[turtleback]

I ordered my copy of The Principles today and already have the USGA Rules of Golf.  I wish the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book was a little cheaper.  I wouldn't mind having a physical copy of that, but it shows $13 PLUS $15 in S&H...;  I guess I'll just access the decisions online.

If you have a smartphone there is an app put out by the USGA that has the complete Rules and Decisions.  It is something like $2-3 and you can download it instantly.

http://www.usga.org/mobile/

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

I ordered my copy of The Principles today and already have the USGA Rules of Golf.  I wish the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book was a little cheaper.  I wouldn't mind having a physical copy of that, but it shows $13 PLUS $15 in S&H...;  I guess I'll just access the decisions online.

If you have a smartphone there is an app put out by the USGA that has the complete Rules and Decisions.  It is something like $2-3 and you can download it instantly.

http://www.usga.org/mobile/

Does it include the full index with cross referencing?  That has always been the down side for the online version at the USGA website, that you need to know what you're looking for or it can be rather laborious trying to find some things.

[turtleback]

Does it include the full index with cross referencing?  That has always been the down side for the online version at the USGA website, that you need to know what you're looking for or it can be rather laborious trying to find some things.

There is an index to the decisions.  Plus there is a searching capability that allows you to search either the rules or the decisions.  For the couple of bucks it costs it it is well worth checking out if you have a iphone or droid.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Does it include the full index with cross referencing?  That has always been the down side for the online version at the USGA website, that you need to know what you're looking for or it can be rather laborious trying to find some things.

There is an index to the decisions.  Plus there is a searching capability that allows you to search either the rules or the decisions.  For the couple of bucks it costs it it is well worth checking out if you have a iphone or droid.

I was asking mostly just to ask.  I don't even have a smartphone of any kind.  I've never had a need for a phone to do anything but make phone calls, and I don't even use up the few prepaid minutes I buy for that.

[iacas]

Let's keep this to the Principles book if possible. Thanks.

[boil3rmak3r]

For those who have already read this... Do you recommend looking at the rule referenced immediately after seeing the reference, or to finish out the chapter and reading the rules at that time. I received mine today and quickly glanced at it during lunch. I get the feeling that reading the entire chapter first, and then looking up the rules might be best. Thoughts?

[David in FL]

I've been reading it with the USGA rules up on my iPad. Some rules I don't need to look at at all, but there have been a few obscure enough, or where the specific verbiage is such that I've wanted to look at it immediately to understand the context. That would be my recommendation.

[boil3rmak3r]

Boy, that was a tough read... I've studied the rules of golf for a number of years now . I was hoping more from this book. Other than putting match play vs stroke play in perspective, I don't think I gained much. I can't imagine how bored the rules gurus must have been reading this thing... Probably a good read for someone that has never studied the rules, but I just don't see the benefit for those that have already studied the rules of golf... IMO, if you're a newbie and want a quick rundown of the rules you need to know the most, read this. If you are a serious golfer who already has a decent knowledge of the rules, skip this and just read the "Rules of Golf" and the subsequent decisions. You won't be missing much.

[Rulesman]

Even if you know the rules backwards, it often helps to understand why they are what they are. Tufts is the right tool for that. eg Why 2 stroke and 1 stroke penalties.