If you could change ONE rule, what would it be?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Aaah . . . no, there is no way a bottle of mix (unless it's Coke for my rye) is gonna get carried around by people walking unless they have a pull/push cart. Consider all the wear and tear on the course already saved by walkers if people need a reason to justify this perceived disparity. Walkers already do enough for the sustainability of the course, the game, and the environment.

Pretty darn proud of ourselves, aren't we?  Somehow walking makes you a better steward of the greens than anyone else?  Sustainability?  Come on, give us a break with the holier than thou crap.  When used as instructed (i.e. 90° rule, staying out of native grass, etc), carts do no more damage to a course than walking.  I've actually seen walkers put their stand bags down on the green, poking holes with the legs.

You choose not to ride, and not to play any course which requires it... that's fine.  You will miss out on the chance to play some pretty fine courses.  And I hope you never develop any health issues which prevent you from walking.  You'll have to give up the game I guess. Please don't try to lord it over the rest of us because you made a different choice.

[The Recreational Golfer]

I wouldn't change a rule per se, but I would change a procedure, if it can be called that. You should get two club lengths in any relief situation, not one club length in these and two club lengths in those. This would make relief easier to get right, and I can’t see any harm in the unification.

I would like to add my 2 cents on the OB/lost ball penalty, but that would better be left to another thread.

As for the wrong score card rule, it makes no sense at all in the professional tournaments where scores are accurately kept by officials accompanying the group all around the course. There should be an exception there. It's like baseball players having to sign after the game for the runs everyone saw them score. However, in the vast majority of amateur tournaments where the only witnesses to play are the players themselves, this rule has great merit.

[tji]

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

I wouldn't change a rule per se, but I would change a procedure, if it can be called that. You should get two club lengths in any relief situation, not one club length in these and two club lengths in those. This would make relief easier to get right, and I can’t see any harm in the unification.

Good point..  Honestly, I never remember whether a situation allows for one or two club length relief.  So, I usually just go with one driver length to be cautious.    But, I don't see the logic for why the small difference in relief in various situations.  Standardizing would eliminate a lot of confusion, and speed things up.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Pretty darn proud of ourselves, aren't we?  Somehow walking makes you a better steward of the greens than anyone else?  Sustainability?  Come on, give us a break with the holier than thou crap.  When used as instructed (i.e. 90° rule, staying out of native grass, etc), carts do no more damage to a course than walking.  I've actually seen walkers put their stand bags down on the green, poking holes with the legs.

You choose not to ride, and not to play any course which requires it... that's fine.  You will miss out on the chance to play some pretty fine courses.  And I hope you never develop any health issues which prevent you from walking.  You'll have to give up the game I guess. Please don't try to lord it over the rest of us because you made a different choice.

I knew you'd have something to say about that comment. You have to search pretty hard to find a more arrogant or "holier than thou" attitude than you regularly display.

It just so happens that In my neck of the woods, there aren't too many courses with paved cart paths tee to green and it's pretty obvious when playing a course that send out more carts, that powercarts (and to a much lesser degree pull and push carts) do more damage to the course than foot traffic does. As has been mentioned by other posters, many folks have similar experiences regarding people walking (carrying or otherwise) being more likely to fix any damage caused by their clubs or balls. Maybe it's because they tend to have a closer connection to the ground and notice divots and ball marks, and maybe it's because more newbs take carts. Just my observations.

If you're a golf course stakeholder, you might see short term benefits of power carts (revenue, allow more people to play the game regardless of fitness level). That could seem like sustainability as it keeps the course in business. Long term sustainability for the course (and the planet) would indicate that walking is a better choice. I guess we'll see how it all turns out.

Edit: this must be a regional debate - in 25 years of golfing I don't think I've ever seen a single walker set his clubs down on the green . On the apron sure, but even then only when it's not too soft. I have seen plenty of people driving carts and pulling pull carts across aprons and tees even though the signage is pretty clear about that. The vast majority of cart users wouldn't ever consider that kind of behaviour, but it happens often enough that it's hard not to judge. And yet I don't lump every cart driver into that group, because that would be ____insert insulting icon here______.

[deasy55]

Originally Posted by tji

Good point..  Honestly, I never remember whether a situation allows for one or two club length relief.  So, I usually just go with one driver length to be cautious.    But, I don't see the logic for why the small difference in relief in various situations.  Standardizing would eliminate a lot of confusion, and speed things up.

It's a simple rule. 1 club length for free drops.....2 for penalty drops. I don't see how that's any bit confusing.

[tjcdas]

Reduce the rule book of golf to one or two pages max.   What a sad situation that professional golfers need their own personal rules official when they play.  The game is not that difficult, the rule book should use more common sense, seems like the rules of golf have been written by a bunch of lawyers.

[Lofty Lefty]

• Shot clock on all shots. Let's say 60-90 seconds from the moment you are away?
• Sand filled divots to be recognised as Ground Under Repair, coz it is, isn't it???
• You should be allowed to repair any and all marks on the green provided you don't break the shot clock rule.
• The option for a free re-hit if some wanker driving past yells "FORE" out of his car window as you're in your shot.
• Reduce the maximum size of drivers back down to something like 360 or 320. They're getting ridiculous.

[Lofty Lefty]

Originally Posted by rebby

Remember Webb Simpson? He was the one penalized in May when his ball moved while addressing it on the green. This resulted in a 1 stroke penalty and, ultimately, Bubba Watson ended up winning in a playoff. The USGA appears to agree with Webb that this is a bad rule (see the linked article, O'Toole even states that a change in this rule could come as early as the 2012 revision). Personally, I disagree that even this rule should be changed. Changing the rule creates a grey area. Did the ball move because of the conditions or because of the manner that the player addressed the ball? When playing in conditions like that, when greens are fast and hard, players should adapt and "address" the ball accordingly (don't ground your club and you haven't officially "addressed" the ball, problem solved). Take, for example, the 1950 US Open. Hogan managed to avoid a penalty under this exact rule by adapting his game to the conditions. Personally, I do not believe that this is a rule that needs to be, or should be, changed.

Yet if he took a practice stroke and accidentally smashed his ball off the toe of his putter, he's allowed to replace without penalty. In either case there was no intention to move the ball. I think a free replace is fair, but then maybe both situations should just count as a 'stroke'. If you don't ground your club, then technically you can actually play a stroke having never addressed the ball. Is THAT a penalty??

If the green was really that hard and fast maybe there's a rule that needs to be made to keep courses fair. I remember an Australian Open or something where they called off play on day 1 due to the greens being 'unplayable' (too hard and fast)

[deasy55]

Originally Posted by Lofty Lefty

Yet if he took a practice stroke and accidentally smashed his ball off the toe of his putter, he's allowed to replace without penalty. In either case there was no intention to move the ball. I think a free replace is fair, but then maybe both situations should just count as a 'stroke'. If you don't ground your club, then technically you can actually play a stroke having never addressed the ball. Is THAT a penalty??

If the green was really that hard and fast maybe there's a rule that needs to be made to keep courses fair. I remember an Australian Open or something where they called off play on day 1 due to the greens being 'unplayable' (too hard and fast)

No he's not.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Lofty Lefty

Yet if he took a practice stroke and accidentally smashed his ball off the toe of his putter, he's allowed to replace without penalty.

Nope.  That is a one stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced.  He caused the ball to move in a way other than making a stroke (a practice swing is not a stroke).  If he does not replace the ball, then he is assessed a 2 stroke penalty.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by tjcdas

Reduce the rule book of golf to one or two pages max.   What a sad situation that professional golfers need their own personal rules official when they play.  The game is not that difficult, the rule book should use more common sense, seems like the rules of golf have been written by a bunch of lawyers.

Go ahead and try to write those rules. Anyone who knows even the most basic situations that could arise in a round of golf will be able to give you situations in which your rules will fail the game.

Originally Posted by Lofty Lefty

Sand filled divots to be recognised as Ground Under Repair, coz it is, isn't it???

Asked and answered earlier. The USGA's stance - and mine - is that because you can't define "sand-filled divot" clearly, you can't have that rule.

Enough talk about walking, riding, and using greens mix. That's off topic, guys... thanks.

[tjcdas]

The rules of golf have failed the game.  If the rules are to complex for a human being that earns a living playing golf, needs another human being or a team of officials to assist with the most simple of rules, the rules fail the game.

For the weekend duffer would it not be better to have basic rules and play them correctly.  The handful of basic rules we all need to know are not even understood and followed my the majority of golfers.  Example hitting a ball out of bounds--100% understanding and following of the rules never........Yellow line vs red line--focus on the basics and improve the game.

A one page rule book would allow 99% of the golfers to understand the most important rules and how to follow them.  Which would be a huge improvement over the current situation.

If the pro's can play "clean, lift and place" and not have the golf God's rolling in their graves they would surely approve one or two page rule book.

KISS

[dhanson]

Originally Posted by tjcdas

The rules of golf have failed the game.  If the rules are to complex for a human being that earns a living playing golf, needs another human being or a team of officials to assist with the most simple of rules, the rules fail the game.

For the weekend duffer would it not be better to have basic rules and play them correctly.  The handful of basic rules we all need to know are not even understood and followed my the majority of golfers.  Example hitting a ball out of bounds--100% understanding and following of the rules never........Yellow line vs red line--focus on the basics and improve the game.

A one page rule book would allow 99% of the golfers to understand the most important rules and how to follow them.  Which would be a huge improvement over the current situation.

there are also numerous actions a pitcher can make which constitute a balk, so lets just get rid of those, too. why is a extra point worth one point, but a field goal from the same spot is worth three? a free throw worth one, but a basket during the game from the same spot worth two? grounding your club in the bunker and taking full swings while hitting the sand should be fine. digging in your feet to check the depth of the sand just isn't enough, and my local course just has awful bunkers that play like hardpan. these gosh darn rules will certainly be the death of the game, as evidenced by the million dollar purses that are handed out weekly on the pga tour, and golf companies being sold for billions of dollars.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by tjcdas

The rules of golf have failed the game.  If the rules are to complex for a human being that earns a living playing golf, needs another human being or a team of officials to assist with the most simple of rules, the rules fail the game.

They're not too complex for them. They simply choose not to learn and understand the rules. They rationalize this by saying "I don't want to make a mistake that's going to cost me a million dollars" or something, and you have situations where guys need to call an official to drop away from a friggin' sprinkler head.

Originally Posted by tjcdas

For the weekend duffer would it not be better to have basic rules and play them correctly.

What makes you think the average weekend duffer is going to follow those rules if they're not following the rules they have now? If your basic rule is simply: "play the ball as it lies except that you can mark it on the putting green" you'll get through 90%+ of the rounds you play without any problems at all. But you'll still have guys rolling the ball in the rough and fairway to prop it up on a better lie.

Originally Posted by tjcdas

A one page rule book would allow 99% of the golfers to understand the most important rules and how to follow them.  Which would be a huge improvement over the current situation.

If the pro's can play "clean, lift and place" and not have the golf God's rolling in their graves they would surely approve one or two page rule book.

I already laid out the challenge: write those rules and you'll be a millionaire. Can't be done. Even a beginner golfer who knows a few rules would be able to give you a few scenarios that your rules wouldn't handle equitably.

Here you go: have at it: http://thesandtrap.com/wiki/rules-of-golf-in-one-page-maybe-two . I've created a wiki you can edit. I'll create a forum thread for it too: http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/47141/rules-of-golf-in-one-page-maybe-two-project . Good luck!

[ochmude]

I don't think there needs to be a 1-page rule book for weekend golfers because the vast majority of weekend golfers have pretty much just one goal in mind...having fun.  As such, the official rules as established by the USGA really don't matter a whole heck of a lot.  Growing up, I lived on a circle cul-de-sac and myself and two other kids that lived on the street would play baseball in the circle almost daily during the summer.  There were only 3 of us so we would rotate and use "ghost runners" to create two teams.  We played with a tennis ball to avoid damage to houses.  There were a whole host of rules that we created to make the game playable and fun.  I'm not certain if there was even just one rule that was part of the Official Baseball Rules that we actually followed.  We still called it baseball, we got outside and had fun, and we never had a committee unleash it's wrath upon us for not following the official rules.

There's absolutely no reason why golf can't be the same way.  The official rules work very well 99% of the time in amateur and professional tournaments and in "official" rounds which count for handicaps.  If you're just a weekend hacker going out to have fun, play however you want.  If you want OB to be treated as a lateral, treat it as a lateral.  If you'd rather take a mulligan than take a provisional, go for it.  If you want to bump your ball around a little or even tee it up while in the rough, what's stopping you?  You're not going to get arrested for it.  You're not even going to get yelled at.  Obviously you can't post the score for handicap purposes, but if you feel you got your money's worth out of the round and enjoyed your time spent on the course, mission accomplished.  No need to make separate rules just for that sort of player.  Like iacas said, the weekend duffer will play by whatever rules he or she chooses to play by in order to make the game enjoyable.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ochmude

There's absolutely no reason why golf can't be the same way.

It already is that way.

Let's stick to the topic. The topic is not "rules in one page." I've already made a separate wiki and thread for that. This thread is "if you could change ONE rule...".

[ochmude]

Originally Posted by iacas

It already is that way.

Let's stick to the topic. The topic is not "rules in one page." I've already made a separate wiki and thread for that. This thread is "if you could change ONE rule...".

I apologize.  Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "there's absolutely no reason why golf can't be left alone to remain the same way."  Regardless, sorry for the thread drift.

[B-Con]

I'd make the hole a little larger. Not much huger, and not with the motivation of making the game easier on Average Joe, but I think that if the hole were maybe .5 to 1.0 inches longer in diameter (.5 inches seems "about right" to me and I couldn't argue anything over 1 full inch with a straight face) it would allow good putters to better distinguish themselves from less skilled putters. It seems like a lot of good putts barely miss by about a quarter inch, and time and time again I've thought to myself that it sort of seems like, conceptually, the hole is just barely the wrong size for the game. As it stands, between roughly 10 and 25 feet, most players have the same putting ability. Almost everyone between an honest 5 and 20 HDCP is going to 2-putt. Shorter than that and the good putters will 1-putt much more often, longer than that and the poorer putters will 3-putt much more often. But in that mid-range zone skill is less relevant. Sure the better putters will make a couple more of them, but the low end of the averages won't be that different from the high end. Considering all the effort it takes to get yourself to a good spot on the green, I think it should be easier to shave a stroke off once you get there. The LHCP puts his ball to 10 feet and usually two putts. The HDCP puts his ball to 25 feet and usually two putts. The reward isn't what I think it could be. I think if the hole were about .5 inches wider, it would push back that "guaranteed 2-putt" zone a little bit and expand the zone in which 1-putts are possible. A lot of missed short putts by decent players miss by a quarter inch. Obviously then you'd have another set of putts that miss the new hole size by a quarter inch, but you'll always have that. The key is the size of the rewarded 1-putt zone. The size of the hole isn't based off the ball. Ball = 1.68 in, hole = 4.25 in. I think that's a shame. If I were designing this sport from the ground up and I already had all the other rules in place and all that was left was the hole size, I'd probably say, "If the putting surface is always to be flat, make it twice the width of the ball. If it is to include curves and uneven surfaces, make it three times the width of the ball." Interestingly, to make the hole three times the diameter of the ball, we'd need to add 0.79 inches to the diameter. (Or shrink the ball, but I think the ball is a good size.) Not dogmatic about this, just an on-and-off thought I have.