Is breaking the rules really bad?

[RJH999]

I think John Daly plays by exactly the same rules as every other golf pro.  Variants of the rules applies only to casual games, and IMO, never for money. E.g., Relaxed Rule #6,  Common Sense.  Precisely Whose Common Sense?  Mine or yours?   If casual,  do as you like but if my $50, and yours, are on the line, we had better agree beforehand. And that is what the Rules are.

Are you sure? I think somebody should check JD's bag for 17 clubs. He may or may not do the other things ;-)

[Flav]

Not at all a rule Nazi but I know them in dizzying detail.  Kind of a personality quirk. Anyway,  IMHO there are several rounds of golf a person can choose to play...... 1) Competitive round--Money or title on the line.  Rules all the way. Post score for handicap. 2) Round for score--Rules (ok maybe a breakfast ball) Post the score if you wish.  I don't care. 3) Fun rounds with buddies-- Agree on the rules and play.  Post the score if you wish.  I don't care. 4) Practice round.  This is one where I move the ball around a lot based on what I am working on.  Get it out of that divot if playing out of a divot is not what I am working on at the moment.  For example.  Right now I am working on making a better turn and maintaining spine angle.  Hitting out of a divot or from under a tree will distract me from that practice.  Post the score if you wish.  I don't care. 5) Scrambles/Shambles and other "hit and giggles".  By all means post the score.  Would love to see you have a few 63's on your card. For every time I said "Post the score if you wish.  I don't care."  that will artificially lower their handicap.  Then I can get a match with them later and guess what, they will be exasperated that they are constantly getting beat.' The only handicaps I have a problem with are the guys that continually post 84 and somehow miraculously shoot 77 on tournament days.  Word on those guys gets out quick and they will never get a dime out of my pocket.  Even if they offer to change their handicap.  No Way.  Might be nice guys and I will play with them anytime.  Just not for any money.

Have to admit I feel the same way. It's not hurting me. I prefer to play by the rules but will not force anyone else unless it's a competition but like you said they will only hurt themselves in the long run.

[NJpatbee]

Relaxed rules for beginners or for practice rounds makes sense.  Also, for the occasional golfer that does not post a handicap that's fine.  But for anyone that has reached a level that they are keeping an official handicap and want to play $$ matches and tournaments, the sooner that golfer plays by the rules the better.

That being said, I do feel strongly that a couple of the USGA rules are ridiculous (e.g. the only hazards are water and sand) and not appropriate for today's courses.  But if we are to compare our scores to handicap a match let's play by the same rules.

[Fourputt]

Relaxed rules for beginners or for practice rounds makes sense.  Also, for the occasional golfer that does not post a handicap that's fine.  But for anyone that has reached a level that they are keeping an official handicap and want to play $$ matches and tournaments, the sooner that golfer plays by the rules the better.

That being said, I do feel strongly that a couple of the USGA rules are ridiculous (e.g. the only hazards are water and sand) and not appropriate for today's courses.  But if we are to compare our scores to handicap a match let's play by the same rules.

Do me a favor and explain your thoughts on the phrase I put in bold.  I want to know what's different today from 30 years ago, 50 years ago, or 200 years ago.

[David in FL]

[SIZE=13px]Do me a favor and explain your thoughts on the phrase I put in bold.  I want to know what's different today from 30 years ago, 50 years ago, or 200 years ago.[/SIZE]

And also, what other types of hazards would you like to see, and why?

[NJpatbee]

Do me a favor and explain your thoughts on the phrase I put in bold.  I want to know what's different today from 30 years ago, 50 years ago, or 200 years ago.

Our rules of golf had their birth on the links courses of the Brirish Isles a couple of hundres years ago (R&A;), where quite frankly, the only hazards were sand and water.  The US courses built in the last 120 years incorporated water and sand to make them challenging in a traditional way, but never adapted to the variety of terrains that most of us play on.  For example, a ball hit off a steep ravine for all practical purposes cannot be played and the penalty is stroke and distance.  The same for inpenetrable woods and thick brush that you cannot enter.  So I can hook the ball off the Grand Canyon and must take a stroke and distance penalty, but slice my ball into a small pond and take a drop using the lateral hazard rule, which applies to water.   So the Grand Canyon is not a hazard but the little man made pond is.

I firmly believe that the USGA should re-visit the definition of "hazard" for US courses.  Courses should, under supervision of the USGA, be able to define lateral hazards for any terrain where the ball usually cannot be retrieved or found (and yes you can hit it if you find it and choose to).  Some courses are adding red stakes for areas that are just too difficult or dangerous to go into, which is of course technically not compliant with the USGA Rules of Golf.

The original R&A; rules, subsequently adopted for the most part by the USGA, in my opinion were always inappropriate for most terrain that was not similar to the links style courses played on hilly, sandy, fields near the coast.  I suspect that the founders of the organized game of golf did not intend to set the rules for the entire world, but had their local courses in mind.  What we have is a parochial definition of hazards that causes severe penalty unless the hazard happens to be water or sand.

Some have said to me that to re-define what a hazard is would allow for too much interpretation which is why I would have the inclusion of hazards as part of the USGA course rating where an independent authority can apply the rule.  As for the definition itself, I would be glad to volunteer to come up with precise wording if the time ever comes.

That being said, I still play by the rules and love the game, but would make some changes.

[David in FL]

There are no seaside cliffs, ravines, or thick brush/gorse on UK, links courses? :-\ I remain curious, how would you define this new type of hazard? It sounds as if you're simply restating the timeworn argument against stroke and distance for a lost ball. How does your proposal differ from those? And BTW, the Grand Canyon? Out of bounds. ;-)

[Rulesman]

There are no seaside cliffs, ravines, or thick brush/gorse on UK, links courses?

Tell me about them

[No Mulligans]

I'm not that good of a golfer, even still I follow the rules, except...  Where I bend the rules is where it will speed up the game.  Like gimmes of 2 feet or less, I always pick it up and move on and will and encourage my group to do the same.  If I'm OB and didn't realize it until I get to the ball, instead of going back to the green (I generally walk the courses), I'll just drop and take a two stroke penalty.  All in the spirit of speeding up the game.

I play with a couple that take so many mulligans, it really slows down the game and that is one of the things that frustrates me about mulligans.  Also when these mulligan takers compare scores and are proud of how low they scored.   "I broke 90!..." (well except for all those strokes you didn't count).  How can you feel good about that?

I like to follow the rules.  Otherwise I feel the scorecard is meaningless.

If you don't follow the rules then why do you keep score?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Do me a favor and explain your thoughts on the phrase I put in bold.  I want to know what's different today from 30 years ago, 50 years ago, or 200 years ago.

Our rules of golf had their birth on the links courses of the Brirish Isles a couple of hundres years ago (R&A;), where quite frankly, the only hazards were sand and water.  The US courses built in the last 120 years incorporated water and sand to make them challenging in a traditional way, but never adapted to the variety of terrains that most of us play on.  For example, a ball hit off a steep ravine for all practical purposes cannot be played and the penalty is stroke and distance.  The same for inpenetrable woods and thick brush that you cannot enter.  So I can hook the ball off the Grand Canyon and must take a stroke and distance penalty, but slice my ball into a small pond and take a drop using the lateral hazard rule, which applies to water.   So the Grand Canyon is not a hazard but the little man made pond is.

I firmly believe that the USGA should re-visit the definition of "hazard" for US courses.  Courses should, under supervision of the USGA, be able to define lateral hazards for any terrain where the ball usually cannot be retrieved or found (and yes you can hit it if you find it and choose to).  Some courses are adding red stakes for areas that are just too difficult or dangerous to go into, which is of course technically not compliant with the USGA Rules of Golf.

The original R&A; rules, subsequently adopted for the most part by the USGA, in my opinion were always inappropriate for most terrain that was not similar to the links style courses played on hilly, sandy, fields near the coast.  I suspect that the founders of the organized game of golf did not intend to set the rules for the entire world, but had their local courses in mind.  What we have is a parochial definition of hazards that causes severe penalty unless the hazard happens to be water or sand.

Some have said to me that to re-define what a hazard is would allow for too much interpretation which is why I would have the inclusion of hazards as part of the USGA course rating where an independent authority can apply the rule.  As for the definition itself, I would be glad to volunteer to come up with precise wording if the time ever comes.

That being said, I still play by the rules and love the game, but would make some changes.

Have you ever seen the heather and gorse, etc. that Scotland produces?

Give this a go sometime...

[legitimatebeef]

I play with 17 clubs. I lift clean and place whenever I feel like it, even in bunkers. I take mulligans and gimmes. I drop a ball in the fairway instead of looking for it in the trees. I putt with the flagstick in. I ground my club in hazards. I move my ball out of divots.  Sometimes I'll drive into the rough and move my ball to the fairway.  I'll place a ball instead of dropping it.

Would I do these things in a tournament?  No

If I shot a 90 while doing these things, would I tell people I shot a 90? No

My main goal in golf is simply to have fun, that's it, and personally I don't think following every single rule is the best way to have fun.

If you're not playing in a tournament or for money, and not keeping an official handicap or plan to in the future, do the rules really need to apply?

One could argue that since I'm not following all the rules of golf, I'm not really playing golf.  I'm just walking around a grassy area, hitting a little ball around.  Sounds good to me.

I'm sure a lot of people disagree with me which is good.  What do you think and why?

I feel very different than you. I play by the rulebook always, to me it has always been way more fun this way. The only way, in my mind I guess. I like the rigor of the challenge. There is something official about the score when you play by the rules, even if it's a so-called casual round and I have always found that cool. I might not always--hell let's face it more often than not I am disappointed with my own score but hey, at least it's a meaningful number. Four plus hours is a long time to be knocking it around only to leave a course without even a finished scorecard to show for it. One of the joys of golf is going after a personal best score, and if you don't play by the rules you're sort of depriving yourself. Never know when you are going to catch lightning. Like this past summer I was on a vacation roadtrip and played an impromptu round with my girlfriend (newbie golfer) and our dog sitting in the cart for crying out loud, at some strange and not easy course. But I managed to shoot my best round of the year despite all the craziness going on and now, I can look back at that card and it's a great memento, it tells a story of that day. Also I like to track stats. So I'm always going to play it hard and fast. That said it sounds to me like you have a very good awareness and perspective on what you're doing out there and there's no way it should bother anyone.

[NJpatbee]

There are no seaside cliffs, ravines, or thick brush/gorse on UK, links courses?

I remain curious, how would you define this new type of hazard? It sounds as if you're simply restating the timeworn argument against stroke and distance for a lost ball. How does your proposal differ from those?

And BTW, the Grand Canyon? Out of bounds.

My exposure to UK courses is from watching the British Open and Ryder Cup and the only links "style" courses I have played were in the US. Using St.Andrews as an example, I have not seen many cliffs or forests, although there are some I have seen in pictures of other UK courses. In my opinion based upon what I have seen the appear to be an exception.  No doubt there are areas where you could lose a ball on UK links courses, and I am not arguing against stroke and distance for lost balls not in hazards.  My beef is with the narrow definition of hazard - water and sand only, and specifically "lateral hazard".  I would prefer to see lateral hazard defined at any lateral area to the fairway where a ball hit into in all probability cannot be found or advanced due to the features of the terrain.  Hit the ball into that heather in Scotland you can look for it but if you do not find it - lost ball, stroke and distance.  Hit the ball off a cliff or into a steep ravine, a hazard if designated so as part of the course rating.

I just do not see the narrow definition of a hazard making sense, and if the founders of the game did not view a cliff as a hazard I suspect some of that good single malt may have been a factor in their decision.  I also do not expect this rule to be changed because that is the way it has always been, but I do not agree with it.  It does not have any impact on my enjoyment of the game since we all play by the same rules.  But to me the definition of a hazard seems arbitrary taking an objective look at the rules.

[David in FL]

My exposure to UK courses is from watching the British Open and Ryder Cup and the only links "style" courses I have played were in the US. Using St.Andrews as an example, I have not seen many cliffs or forests, although there are some I have seen in pictures of other UK courses. In my opinion based upon what I have seen the appear to be an exception.  No doubt there are areas where you could lose a ball on UK links courses, and I am not arguing against stroke and distance for lost balls not in hazards.  My beef is with the narrow definition of hazard - water and sand only, and specifically "lateral hazard".  I would prefer to see lateral hazard defined at any lateral area to the fairway where a ball hit into in all probability cannot be found or advanced due to the features of the terrain.  Hit the ball into that heather in Scotland you can look for it but if you do not find it - lost ball, stroke and distance.  Hit the ball off a cliff or into a steep ravine, a hazard if designated so as part of the course rating. I just do not see the narrow definition of a hazard making sense, and if the founders of the game did not view a cliff as a hazard I suspect some of that good single malt may have been a factor in their decision.  I also do not expect this rule to be changed because that is the way it has always been, but I do not agree with it.  It does not have any impact on my enjoyment of the game since we all play by the same rules.  But to me the definition of a hazard seems arbitrary taking an objective look at the rules.

The founders recognized that golf is played outside, on a very non-standard and varying course. Where that terrain, and the player's ability to negotiate it is woven into the very fabric of the game. Where a lost ball, or a ball hit off the course, is considered worse than hitting into a "hazard" intentionally placed to increase the difficulty of the game. The concept that golfers be penalized proportionately to the transgression, is one of the basic principles of the rules, and of the game itself. [quote name="Fourputt" url="/t/74066/is-breaking-the-rules-really-bad/54#post_1059385"] Have you ever seen the heather and gorse, etc. that Scotland produces?   [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/106530/] [/URL] Give this a go sometime... :scared:   [/quote] Now that's a lot of "hazard"...! ;-)

[NJpatbee]

The founders recognized that golf is played outside, on a very non-standard and varying course. Where that terrain, and the player's ability to negotiate it is woven into the very fabric of the game. Where a lost ball, or a ball hit off the course, is considered worse than hitting into a "hazard" intentionally placed to increase the difficulty of the game. The concept that golfers be penalized proportionately to the transgression, is one of the basic principles of the rules, and of the game itself.

Now that's a lot of "hazard"...!

I understand the rule and appreciate the challenging a golfer's ability to avoid hazards intentionally placed, but I believe that naturally occurring hazards other than water or sand should be given the same treatment and should not be considered a greater transgression.  In NW NJ there is a course that has a hole where you have to hit across a portion of an abandoned quarry, no water or sand, just a deep rock gorge that you cannot get to.  It is not a hazard but the hole no doubt included this man-made hazard in the design of the hole.  How about hitting across the lava cliffs in Maui, is that unintentional?

What I am hearing is that a decision was made a couple of hundred years ago and that rule has been in effect in literally billions of rounds of golf, so it is intrinsic to the game.   But it still does not make sense to me and I would like to hear the justification the founders used to establish it.  I am currently teaching my 9 year old to play golf and he plays from the green tees.  When I explained this rule to him as many youngsters would he asked "Why?" continually.  After a number of answers about the rule of golf I have to resort to the fact that the original founders said so.  You can imagine his answer.

[NJpatbee]

I understand the rule and appreciate the challenging a golfer's ability to avoid hazards intentionally placed, but I believe that naturally occurring hazards other than water or sand should be given the same treatment and should not be considered a greater transgression.  In NW NJ there is a course that has a hole where you have to hit across a portion of an abandoned quarry, no water or sand, just a deep rock gorge that you cannot get to.  It is not a hazard but the hole no doubt included this man-made hazard in the design of the hole.  How about hitting across the lava cliffs in Maui, is that unintentional?

What I am hearing is that a decision was made a couple of hundred years ago and that rule has been in effect in literally billions of rounds of golf, so it is intrinsic to the game.   But it still does not make sense to me and I would like to hear the justification the founders used to establish it.  I am currently teaching my 9 year old to play golf and he plays from the green tees.  When I explained this rule to him as many youngsters would he asked "Why?" continually.  After a number of answers about the rule of golf I have to resort to the fact that the original founders said so.  You can imagine his answer.

I should have said 9 year old grandson!!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

The founders recognized that golf is played outside, on a very non-standard and varying course. Where that terrain, and the player's ability to negotiate it is woven into the very fabric of the game. Where a lost ball, or a ball hit off the course, is considered worse than hitting into a "hazard" intentionally placed to increase the difficulty of the game. The concept that golfers be penalized proportionately to the transgression, is one of the basic principles of the rules, and of the game itself.

Now that's a lot of "hazard"...!

I understand the rule and appreciate the challenging a golfer's ability to avoid hazards intentionally placed, but I believe that naturally occurring hazards other than water or sand should be given the same treatment and should not be considered a greater transgression.  In NW NJ there is a course that has a hole where you have to hit across a portion of an abandoned quarry, no water or sand, just a deep rock gorge that you cannot get to.  It is not a hazard but the hole no doubt included this man-made hazard in the design of the hole.  How about hitting across the lava cliffs in Maui, is that unintentional?

What I am hearing is that a decision was made a couple of hundred years ago and that rule has been in effect in literally billions of rounds of golf, so it is intrinsic to the game.   But it still does not make sense to me and I would like to hear the justification the founders used to establish it.  I am currently teaching my 9 year old to play golf and he plays from the green tees.  When I explained this rule to him as many youngsters would he asked "Why?" continually.  After a number of answers about the rule of golf I have to resort to the fact that the original founders said so.  You can imagine his answer.

Pick any game or sport and you will find that at least some of the rules in each are arbitrary - why should golf be any different?  Golf has at least some fundamental principles which all of the rules are based on or evolved from.  Those principles can be traced back to Scottish shepherds batting rocks around the pasture with their crooks.  The players have always had to deal with different obstacles in playing the game.  Some of those have been given hazard designation, some are just part of the course that the player is expected to deal with.    The game has held true to its beginnings within the limits of playability for 400 years, so don't expect any action on your idea any time soon.

If you can,  give your grandson an explanation based in logic for why there are 3 only strikes in baseball, but 4 balls.  Or why the base paths are 90 feet long and home plate to the pitching rubber is 60 feet 6 inches, yet the outfield fence is of indeterminate distance and height.  Or why a field goal in football carries the same point value whether it's from 15 yards or 55 yards.

It is what it is because that's how it is.

[imsys0042]

Which course in northwest NJ? I've played a lot there.

[NJpatbee]

Pick any game or sport and you will find that at least some of the rules in each are arbitrary - why should golf be any different?  Golf has at least some fundamental principles which all of the rules are based on or evolved from.  Those principles can be traced back to Scottish shepherds batting rocks around the pasture with their crooks.  The players have always had to deal with different obstacles in playing the game.  Some of those have been given hazard designation, some are just part of the course that the player is expected to deal with.    The game has held true to its beginnings within the limits of playability for 400 years, so don't expect any action on your idea any time soon.

If you can,  give your grandson an explanation based in logic for why there are 3 only strikes in baseball, but 4 balls.  Or why the base paths are 90 feet long and home plate to the pitching rubber is 60 feet 6 inches, yet the outfield fence is of indeterminate distance and height.  Or why a field goal in football carries the same point value whether it's from 15 yards or 55 yards.

It is what it is because that's how it is.

I do not expect any changes to the hazard definition because "that's how it is" and has always been.  That is the explanation that I give to my grandson who at 9 years old does not think it makes sense - that's the rule.  Of course some rules in all sports are arbitrary in areas such as distance or score values, but the narrow definition of golf hazards and the fact that the punishment for hitting into them is less severe than other natural hazards is still illogical to me.  I play by the rules and in no way does it diminish the joy I get playing the game - we all play by the same rules with the same penalties.    I am a college football fan and follow my own school and a couple of others.  To me a safety is much more difficult to get than a field goal yet it is worth only 2 points - I would have made it 4 points when the original rules were being established, but it will never change.  I still enjoy college football just as I still enjoy golf.  But I do have my opinions regarding the rules which we are not all going to agree with.  I have not researched it enough but should to determine if the the thought process behind this and other rules is documented.