Are there too many rules in golf?

[disco111]

If you're not joking, you're missing the point. That's every course (and only a small sample of what can happen on any course). There was no overkill… if anything, it was "underkill." I didn't list everything that could happen.

So? It doesn't mean that you can eliminate the other rules because they come into play 5% of the time. Or 1% of the time. Or 10%.

It'd be like saying that since a QB almost never commits an intentional grounding from inside the end zone, let's just not write the rule for it. You still have to write the rule (awarding a safety to the other team), even if years go by and it doesn't come up.

No… Local Rules do not "supersede" the Rules of Golf. They are part of the Rules of Golf, and I have never heard of a Committee being authorized to modify a Rule of Golf as noted in the second paragraph here:

Go look at Appendix I.

The only thing I've seen that's contradictory is that you think Local Rules supersede the Rules of Golf. C'mon… I'm really doubting your knowledge level on the RoG.

Now you're just blathering on. I don't know what you're talking about, but I am fairly certain by now that you don't really know, understand, or appreciate the complexity required to write the Rules of Golf.

The Rules of Golf are full of common sense, and guided by some very clear Principles. The "committee members" are passionate people who care about the game of golf, and their "sole position" is to protect and nurture that game. Please… find a rule like what you suggest, whose "sole purpose" is to "interchange freely" or create confusion or whatever it is you're trying to say.

Perhaps no new rule book is coming because… it cannot be "simplified" as you seem to believe just because you want to believe it can be. It's a complex sport, and yet… the Rules of Golf is the same length or shorter than the rules books for many other sports.

I'm a golf professional. I play and teach the game for a living. I put it on myself to know and understand the rules, in-depth, or to know where to find the answers in minutes if necessary. I play for money in section events, and play for fun (while still observing rules) as well. I'm also teaching my daughter, and she knows the Rules of Golf.

What position is that? That the Rules of Golf, which you've demonstrated that you don't seem to understand very well, are too complex? Yet you've not responded to the points made by myself and others that the complexity is both:

necessary due to the complexity and variance of the playing fields and conditions and situations we encounter in golf, and…

… completely in line with other sports, the rules books for which are as long or often longer than the Rules of Golf?

I believe you're mistaken on that one. The rule was not redefined. Furthermore, Tiger's knowledge of the Rules of Golf afforded him the chance to move the loose impediment.

So, how would you define a loose impediment? Would you have a scale? What if a weightlifter is someone's caddie? Can they help move a loose impediment? What if it's thorny, and the golfer could move it, but doesn't want to because he could get a thorn in his hand? Can his caddie move it then? What if someone moves a loose impediment, without disturbing the ball, before the player arrives at the ball? What if the loose impediment blows away? What if an opponent removes it? A fellow competitor? Can a player help his caddie in moving a loose impediment?

Let's play with this one. How do you propose "reducing" the Rules of Golf by modifying rule 23? I'd like to hear this one.

That doesn't even make sense. I don't think you know the RoG very well, which makes discussing the simplification of them quite difficult.

To take each rebuttal you posed one on one, could be a waste of time, but what the heck. Go back and re-read what you wrote, because most of it, if not all is beyond words. You talk about blathering, you have cornered the market on that with your post. Your last tirade on loose impediments takes the cake. The loose impediment reference was for Tiger getting a construction crew to move what must have been a 2,000 lb boulder and your response was a weightlifter caddie and other nonsense. Of course that rule was adjusted to not allow such a thing again. You know what transpired, do you think anyone could have moved that boulder by themselves?  Since you felt free and morally obligated to say and feel that I know nothing, just because you wrote some book and you presumably have a card that states your a professional, your words say much more. Very condescending to say the least.Nobody said or addressed that we should do away with the 5% of the rules that we generally don't come in contact with. It was stipulated that rendering rules more concise and user friendly (examples were given), could be a plan of action. As for every course and what could happen, what you proposed was totally overkill. It was already offered, by one of your counterparts, who made the initial reference that the 95 percentile was what most of us played under, including yourself. If anyone ever confronted all those non-overkill situations during the course of a round, well I'm at a loss for words for such arrogance. For the record, I have been on local tournament rules committee and we had to implement a ruling that didn't have a reference in the rule book. Every trap on the course was totally filled with water, so the ruling became free drop out of the bunkers (total common sense). Now granted, this was quite a few years ago and we didn't need authorization from the USGA, it was a local qualifier for the state amateur. The hosting PGA pro was the chairman and it was his assessment of the situation and there was no need for USGA involvement. As for comparing other sports rule books......who cares, the subject is golf and not a QB grounding the ball or some other such nonsense.

We've come to an impasse, you apparently don't care for my postings and assuredly, I the same about yours. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm finished with this thread and if you feel the need to banish me from your domain, feel free.

[iacas]

Your last tirade on loose impediments takes the cake. The loose impediment reference was for Tiger getting a construction crew to move what must have been a 2,000 lb boulder and your response was a weightlifter caddie and other nonsense.

Tiger did not use a construction crew to move the boulder.

Of course that rule was adjusted to not allow such a thing again.

Tell you what… go look at the rule. You're wrong. I quoted it above.

Since you felt free and morally obligated to say and feel that I know nothing

You said and continue to say things that are factually untrue and demonstrate less than a full understanding of the Rules of Golf.

Nobody said or addressed that we should do away with the 5% of the rules that we generally don't come in contact with.

I specifically addressed that. You have to have rules in place for the situations when they are encountered. Like intentional grounding in the end zone. You can't just eliminate rules or situations because you don't think they occur very often. What if it occurs on the last hole of a major championship?

It was stipulated that rendering rules more concise and user friendly (examples were given), could be a plan of action.

And the premise has largely been rejected by many who know the RoG as not particularly possible given the fact that we play on such a variety of courses. The burden of proof is on you at this point.

As for every course and what could happen, what you proposed was totally overkill.

No, it wasn't. All of those situations can happen. Not all at once, but they can all happen… and again, I didn't come close to listing everything that could happen.

It was already offered, by one of your counterparts, who made the initial reference that the 95 percentile was what most of us played under, including yourself.

What's your point?

You still need rules to cover the other 5%. You can learn a few basic rules to cover around 95% of the situations, yes, but that doesn't mean you can just do away with the other rules to cover the 5%. They occur.

For the record, I have been on local tournament rules committee and we had to implement a ruling that didn't have a reference in the rule book. Every trap on the course was totally filled with water, so the ruling became free drop out of the bunkers (total common sense). Now granted, this was quite a few years ago and we didn't need authorization from the USGA, it was a local qualifier for the state amateur. The hosting PGA pro was the chairman and it was his assessment of the situation and there was no need for USGA involvement. As for comparing other sports rule books......who cares, the subject is golf and not a QB grounding the ball or some other such nonsense.

A group of people let someone who doesn't know the rules on a rules committee?

Also, it's in the Rules: http://www.usga.org/RulesFAQ/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=102&Rule;=25 .

You could have declared all bunkers GUR (I think the USGA gives you guidance there, maybe even some specific wording - Edit: yeah, see @Fourputt 's post). Also, you're basically arguing against yourself at this point: you encountered a fairly important tournament where one of those 5% situations occurred.

We've come to an impasse, you apparently don't care for my postings and assuredly, I the same about yours. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm finished with this thread and if you feel the need to banish me from your domain, feel free.

Yeah… we don't do that. You've got the wrong site if you think that we ban people or punish people for disagreeing. So long as you can behave maturely, you're free to continue to share your opinions.

[wadesworld]

We've come to an impasse, you apparently don't care for my postings and assuredly, I the same about yours. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm finished with this thread and if you feel the need to banish me from your domain, feel free.

Your postings make no sense and you've not put forward one single tangible suggestion.  When you've tried to point to a "fact," you've been incorrect.

Yet you're irate we disagree?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

To take each rebuttal you posed one on one, could be a waste of time, but what the heck. Go back and re-read what you wrote, because most of it, if not all is beyond words. You talk about blathering, you have cornered the market on that with your post. Your last tirade on loose impediments takes the cake. The loose impediment reference was for Tiger getting a construction crew to move what must have been a 2,000 lb boulder and your response was a weightlifter caddie and other nonsense. Of course that rule was adjusted to not allow such a thing again. You know what transpired, do you think anyone could have moved that boulder by themselves?

It really is a shame that you can go on and on and with each post you show your lack of knowledge of the rules more and more.  The Decision about large loose impediments was in the book long before Tiger's incident.  Previously it involved a large tree that had blown over and required a half dozen people to help the player move it.  They replaced that with the Tiger boulder simply because of the publicity about it - partly because of Ken Venturi's uninformed comment on the air.  Venturi was wrong and so are you.

Quote:

For the record, I have been on local tournament rules committee and we had to implement a ruling that didn't have a reference in the rule book. Every trap on the course was totally filled with water, so the ruling became free drop out of the bunkers (total common sense). Now granted, this was quite a few years ago and we didn't need authorization from the USGA, it was a local qualifier for the state amateur. The hosting PGA pro was the chairman and it was his assessment of the situation and there was no need for USGA involvement. As for comparing other sports rule books......who cares, the subject is golf and not a QB grounding the ball or some other such nonsense.

You worked on a rules committee?  For a State Amateur qualifier?  And didn't know that the rules offer a solution for when bunkers are filled with casual water? If the committee included bunkers which were not entirely filled with water, then they made a serious mistake and had no business being in position to make decisions in such an important competition (sounds like they shouldn't have been anyway).  Decision 33-8/27 is quite specific in how such conditions should be treated:

Quote:

33-8/27

Local Rule Providing Relief Without Penalty from Bunker Filled with Casual Water

Q. May a Committee make a Local Rule allowing a player to drop out of any bunker filled with casual water, without penalty, contrary to Rule 25-1b(ii) ?

A. No. The Committee may not make a Local Rule providing generally that flooded bunkers are ground under repair through the green, as such a Local Rule waives a penalty imposed by the Rules of Golf, contrary to Rule 33-8b .

However, in exceptional circumstances, where certain specific bunkers are completely flooded and there is no reasonable likelihood of the bunkers drying up during the round, the Committee may introduce a Local Rule providing relief without penalty from specific bunkers. Prior to introducing such a Local Rule, the Committee must be convinced that such exceptional circumstances exist and that providing relief without penalty from specific bunkers is more appropriate than simply applying Rule 25-1b(ii) . If the Committee elects to introduce a Local Rule, the following wording is suggested:

"The flooded bunker on [insert location of bunker; e.g., left of 5th green] is ground under repair. If a player's ball lies in that bunker or if that bunker interferes with the player's stance or the area of his intended swing and the player wishes to take relief, he must take relief outside the bunker, without penalty, in accordance with Rule 25-1b(i) . All other bunkers on the course, regardless of whether they contain water, maintain their status as hazards and the Rules apply accordingly."

In a competition played over more than one round, such a Local Rule may be introduced or rescinded between rounds.

[mvmac]

[QUOTE name="disco111" url="/t/82265/are-there-too-many-rules-in-golf/126#post_1151086"]   Very condescending to say the least. We've come to an impasse, you apparently don't care for my postings and assuredly, I the same about yours. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm finished with this thread and if you feel the need to banish me from your domain, feel free.     [/QUOTE] [COLOR=333333]I think you're taking things too personally and while your posts make sense to you, they don't add up for most of us. As complicated as golf could be, the rules are fairly simple and straightforward. [/COLOR]

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

You keep extolling the same phraseology. As stated before, it's a moot point because it solves nothing. It's a challenge in name only, with no quantifying results emanating from the endeavor. But, and this is presumptuous at best, if the challenge was met, then in fact you would have to change your position, but then again, if the ruling bodies didn't accept it, then it's back to where we are presently and you would not have to agree that your position was changed, so it's a no win either way.

That's one tough course you play.........

In truth, it's doubtful that anyone would play or want to play such a course and I realize that your attempting to make a point, but perhaps just a slight overkill if you will. As has been stated before, 95% of us are playing everyday under 7 to 8 of the rules in question and that most likely includes the pros. I can't speak for you, but in all my years of playing, the vast majority of rules contained in the rule book never came into play and I'd venture to say that most people on here can attest to the same thing. I think we've all seen local rules, that have taken precedence over the rule book, due to outstanding conditions and these are done with a common sense overview and the rule book didn't cover it. I realize that sounds somewhat contradictory to my assessment of the rules in general, but it's strikes at the heart of the discussion. Common sense, should trump the rhetoric of committee members, who's sole positioning is to create an ever increasing assemblage of rules which often interchange freely with reference to other rules. So rule 14 section A, subdivision 3, reflects upon rule 18 section B subsection 1A paragraph 4 (just an example) and you can't tell me that you haven't seen something like this.

Lets just accept the fact, that no new rule book will be forthcoming and there will be those that agree and those that dis-agree on the subject. Since none of us, to my knowledge, play the game for a living, our in-depth knowledge of all the rules is not really required. I for one, am content to be one of the 95%, playing under the 7 or 8 basic rules that have served so well for over 50 years. Now if you invite me to play your course, then I'll buy a rule book and hope my caddie is also a lawyer moonlighting...............

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

I'm not arguing, I'm attempting to present a position, that by your own words (complexity and size) which to me reinforces the overall structure of the debate towards those of us that feel there's to many rules. Now as you pointed out, specific rules can be argued, only because they were open to an interpretation of the rule. I've listed several on other posts. Now I can fully understand redefining a current rule, to make it more fully understandable, which was done with the Tiger's loose impediment boulder farce. That was a perfect example of a rule being open to interpretation. How in the world that USGA or Tour official allowed that to transpire is beyond me and that's one of the things that can be accomplished with a rules reduction. Trim the fat away and get to the meat of a ruling, no individual interpretations and in doing so the rule becomes black and white as I feel it should be. No referencing rule 10 subsection 2A sub-paragraph C and if that does not reflect the proper procedure, proceed to rule 21 section 12 sub section 5 sub paragraph 4 or consult local rules committee. This is the overall essence of the complaint of to many rules.

How can you comment on the rules or make changes in the rules when your posts demonstrate over and over again that you know very little about the rules.  Sorry to be so blunt, but you have made simple error after simple error in this thread starting with Tiger's boulder incident where you somehow think what happened was wrong and they changed the rules when exactly the opposite happened.  They confirmed the legality and correctness of the ruling.  The point of the ruling was that the rule was NOT open for interpretation.  YOU want to interpret it to include a size element to the definition of loose impediment, but if the object is a) natural, and b) not fixed or embedded, than it is a loose impediment even if it is the size of the Moon.

As to the stuff about 7-9 rules covering 95% of the situations?  So what?  Are we supposed to ignore the other 5% of the time?  95% of the users of Microsoft Word use about 5% of its capabilities.  But it is nice to know the other 95% of the features are there if you need them.  Maybe Word needs to be simplified so its features only cover 95% of its users needs.  Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a complete aside, someone ( @DaveP043 ?) quoted the 13 original rules among which were this one:

Quote:

1. You must Tee your Ball within a Club's length of the Hole.

I wish guys would stop doing the analog on the practice green.  When you hole out on one hole and want to now putt to a different hole MOVE AWAY from the first hole.  Otherwise you are tying up 2 practice holes.  Sorry - pet peeve.

[ColinL]

disco11

I have a suggestion as to how you could immediately simplify the Rules.    Just cut out all the ones you have made up and your personal rule book will be much slimmer.

[natureboy]

That's an interesting read. What's a Scholar Hole - archeological dig?

It would be interesting to update it a bit and see what it was like to play this way. Obviously it wouldn't count for HCP purposes.

The changes I see to make it work today would be:

1. make the tee rule apply to the tee markers rather than the prior hole

2. replace #7 with allowance for marking and lifting on the green to avoid croquet & stymies

3. remove teeing from any lift & drop

4. add a 'drop' procedure that clarifies dropping within a club from point of entry or as far back along line between that point & hole

5. add an unplayable (with penalty) option with similar one club or as far back along line of play

6. add a provisional ball option

7. modernize trench & ditch rule to 'man made obstructions' remove the teeing option and refer to the lift & drop procedure

8. add a 14 club rule

Would also add a fairly take stance and add modifier to 'play as it lies' for not improving lie.

Also drop procedure would include option of drop as near as possible to prior position.

[JetFan1983]

Each rule is in the book for a reason. Maybe I'm weird, but I enjoyed reading the rule book when I first started playing the game. Lots of interesting situations they figured out needed clarifying.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureboy

That's an interesting read. What's a Scholar Hole - archeological dig?

It would be interesting to update it a bit and see what it was like to play this way. Obviously it wouldn't count for HCP purposes.

The changes I see to make it work today would be:

1. make the tee rule apply to the tee markers rather than the prior hole

2. replace #7 with allowance for marking and lifting on the green to avoid croquet & stymies

3. remove teeing from any lift & drop

4. add a 'drop' procedure that clarifies dropping within a club from point of entry or as far back along line between that point & hole

5. add an unplayable (with penalty) option with similar one club or as far back along line of play

6. add a provisional ball option

7. modernize trench & ditch rule to 'man made obstructions' remove the teeing option and refer to the lift & drop procedure

8. add a 14 club rule

Would also add a fairly take stance and add modifier to 'play as it lies' for not improving lie.

Also drop procedure would include option of drop as near as possible to prior position.

Talk about supporting the cause - it's only been a day and he is already finding the need to revise his own list!  This is exactly how the rules evolved over the last 270 years.  They tried something, it worked for a while, then a situation came up that wasn't covered clearly enough to ensure consistent interpretation, so the rule was modified or a new rule was added.  At some point all of the changes became cumbersome, so a new revision was written for clarity and cohesiveness.  This process repeated several times over the next 200 years.

In 1921 there were 36 general rules, plus 28 rules to cover the different forms of play allowed.  In 1933 there were almost as many but they had been changed and rearranged,  By 1950 we were up to 44 rules , and the order of listing was a bit confusing.  In 1984 they were pared down to 34, and reorganized so that rules involving similar acts or similar parts of the course were grouped together and were listed as "rule number dash number" (like 26-1) instead of each detail being a separate rule.  The real advance here was in the order and grouping, making the progression more logical, more in keeping with the order in which the different rules might come into play on the course.  It made using the rule book and finding a rule much easier.  The 1984 rule book would recognizable and comparable to what is current today.  That is also the revision when the USGA and the R&A; were first in total consensus and operating under the same set of rules.

[natureboy]

Each rule is in the book for a reason. Maybe I'm weird, but I enjoyed reading the rule book when I first started playing the game. Lots of interesting situations they figured out needed clarifying.

I've been reading The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf and do find the why of some rules interesting and informative. It's a little like the development of common law to deal with question marks arising from statutory law.

As a beginner, the official rule book seemed intimidating and overwhelming. I understand it is organized this way to facilitate those familiar with it to find the appropriate section easily. However, as a newbie I turned to online summaries and synopses that were under a page to make it simpler to grasp initially while I focused on the much more difficult part of actually hitting the ball.

Maybe the rules book could be supplemented with a more gradual ramp-up to the detailed rule and decision structure. Start with a basic summary statement of principles 'this is the essence of the game'. Then have the primary rules & procedures (with reference to a definitions index). Then have the full rule-by-rule with decision breakdown in the 'fine detail' section. The USGA rule book tries to do this with the 'quick guide' section, but I think even that is not as simple as it could be for the unfamiliar. It certainly could be bracketed better - colored thumb reference tabs on edge of page maybe? I think that some who grow up playing and are slowly mentored into knowledge of the rules may not realize the apparent complexity that a new player may feel confronted with.

@Fourputt ealized I forgot those just after posting and was timed out from editing. But, I get you. I think something like that short of a primary list would make an initial intro to the rules easier. I understand why for fair competition the full blown rules is needed. The extreme - no round counts for HCP unless you follow every rule perfectly isn't reality. Many golfers post HCPs with likely errors in rule procedure or interpretation and probably end up as effective sandbaggers as a result (not implementing rules that would actually help their typical score) like me with not knowing about man-made obstruction drop for unmarked drainage swales with rip-rap.

[disco111]

I think you're taking things too personally and while your posts make sense to you, they don't add up for most of us. As complicated as golf could be, the rules are fairly simple and straightforward.

Of course it became personal, iacas made it that way. Anytime you make a determination that someone knows nothing and then you continue on to lambaste, it's most assuredly personal. Now I see disciples also want to jump on the band wagon and echo his sentiments. Et tu Brute.........

This for iacas man to man. You sir, like to think yourself as above us. You also like to play with words and definitions. Your retort about Tiger not using a construction crew is a perfect example. You know what the intent was, but yet you deferred to your self arrogance and attempted to play a very lame rebuttal card. I know the rules, at least the majority that come into everyday play and it's doubtful that you know all the rules and the explanations that are associated with them. It's very doubtful that anyone knows everything in that rule book, but it's outrageously condescending to think that someone who's been in golf for over 50 years knows nothing.

This is my final response to this thread, for it became a circle jerk and got way out of civility. To all, have a nice day

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

Each rule is in the book for a reason. Maybe I'm weird, but I enjoyed reading the rule book when I first started playing the game. Lots of interesting situations they figured out needed clarifying.

I've been reading The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf and do find the why of some rules interesting and informative. It's a little like the development of common law to deal with question marks arising from statutory law.

As a beginner, the official rule book seemed intimidating and overwhelming. I understand it is organized this way to facilitate those familiar with it to find the appropriate section easily. However, as a newbie I turned to online summaries and synopses that were under a page to make it simpler to grasp initially while I focused on the much more difficult part of actually hitting the ball.

Maybe the rules book could be supplemented with a more gradual ramp-up to the detailed rule and decision structure. Start with a basic summary statement of principles 'this is the essence of the game'. Then have the primary rules & procedures (with reference to a definitions index). Then have the full rule-by-rule with decision breakdown in the 'fine detail' section. The USGA rule book tries to do this with the 'quick guide' section, but I think even that is not as simple as it could be for the unfamiliar. It certainly could be bracketed better - colored thumb reference tabs on edge of page maybe? I think that some who grow up playing and are slowly mentored into knowledge of the rules may not realize the apparent complexity that a new player may feel confronted with.

I played my first golf in 1964 when I was 17, but I didn't actually know anything about the game until I took an interest in the mid 80's.  I had learned what I knew by word of mouth, most of it was incomplete and some was just plain wrong.  I got my first rule book in 1987 when I joined the USGA Associates program (back then only clubs could hold full membership).  I read the rule book many times during the next few years, but my first revisions book wasn't purchased until 1997, and then I really began to see how they worked.  I could apply a rule from just using the rule book, but didn't always understand why it was like it was.  Reading the Decisions really advanced my comprehension.

After studying the Decisions, attending a couple of 4 day USGA Rules Workshops, reading the Principles on the Rules of Golf, working as rules official with the Colorado Golf Association, I still make mistakes with some of the more obscure areas.  I'm still learning, and I will be as long as I play golf.

However, I do now know the basic playing procedures well, I know how the rules are organized, why certain penalties are more severe than others, why some acts are seen as being more heinous than others.  Reading and absorbing the Principles Behind the Rules of Golf really opens ones eyes to the logic underlying every rule.  There is a beauty and consistency in the way they are organized and applied.  The Principles should be required reading for anyone who wants the hold an intelligent discussion about the rules.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think you're taking things too personally and while your posts make sense to you, they don't add up for most of us. As complicated as golf could be, the rules are fairly simple and straightforward.

Of course it became personal, iacas made it that way. Anytime you make a determination that someone knows nothing and then you continue on to lambaste, it's most assuredly personal. Now I see disciples also want to jump on the band wagon and echo his sentiments. Et tu Brute.........

This for iacas man to man. You sir, like to think yourself as above us. You also like to play with words and definitions. Your retort about Tiger not using a construction crew is a perfect example. You know what the intent was, but yet you deferred to your self arrogance and attempted to play a very lame rebuttal card. I know the rules, at least the majority that come into everyday play and it's doubtful that you know all the rules and the explanations that are associated with them. It's very doubtful that anyone knows everything in that rule book, but it's outrageously condescending to think that someone who's been in golf for over 50 years knows nothing.

This is my final response to this thread, for it became a circle jerk and got way out of civility. To all, have a nice day

Is this really your final response? The one prior was meant to be your last ... how many more final, final, final responses to we have to endure?

[Missouri Swede]

Maybe the rules book could be supplemented with a more gradual ramp-up to the detailed rule and decision structure.

Like this?:: https://www.usgashop.com/Media/Books/id-USGAED0018/A_Quick_Guide_to_the_Rules_of_Golf ($0.85)

And this?: https://www.usgashop.com/Media/Reference/id-USGAED0019/Common_Golf_Rules_Stroke_Match ($3.00)

And this?: https://www.usgashop.com/Media/Reference/id-USGAED0030/Rules_of_Golf_Junior_Flashcards ($5.00)

And video demonstration?: http://usga-rules.com (free)

And I received a "Shortcut to Golf Rules" pamphlet from the USGA a year or three ago (not requested from them, so I figure many/most other USGA members got it as well).

I'm not trying to rag on you or berate you, but what other resources do you want?  In other words, how do these simplified guides fall short?  (And these aren't hard to find on the usga web site--I just went to usga.org-->rules-->education or to shop-->publications.)

[David in FL]

Reading and absorbing the Principles Behind the Rules of Golf really opens ones eyes to the logic underlying every rule.  There is a beauty and consistency in the way they are organized and applied. The Principles should be required reading for anyone who wants the hold an intelligent discussion about the rules.

Agree. For those who are interested, the short book (little more than a pamphlet) is available from the USGA for a whopping $3 if I remember correctly.

[Shindig]

The Principles should be required reading for anyone who wants the hold an intelligent discussion about the rules.

I'm a little surprised they aren't required reading for it. I learned in this thread that the rules themselves aren't required reading to discuss them, so... ? :-\ [quote name="David in FL" url="/t/82265/are-there-too-many-rules-in-golf/126#post_1151305"] For those who are interested, the short book (little more than a pamphlet) is available from the USGA for a whopping $3 if I remember correctly.[/quote] If it isn't $3, it's in the neighborhood. I bought a few of them a while back for really cheap. [i]Edit[/i]: Oops, messed up the formatting and put part of what David said as attributed to Fourputt. Sorry for any confusion.

[dkolo]

Of course it became personal, iacas made it that way. Anytime you make a determination that someone knows nothing and then you continue on to lambaste, it's most assuredly personal. Now I see disciples also want to jump on the band wagon and echo his sentiments. Et tu Brute.........  This for iacas man to man. You sir, like to think yourself as above us. You also like to play with words and definitions. Your retort about Tiger not using a construction crew is a perfect example. You know what the intent was, but yet you deferred to your self arrogance and attempted to play a very lame rebuttal card. I know the rules, at least the majority that come into everyday play and it's doubtful that you know all the rules and the explanations that are associated with them. It's very doubtful that anyone knows everything in that rule book, but it's outrageously condescending to think that someone who's been in golf for over 50 years knows nothing. This is my final response to this thread, for it became a circle jerk and got way out of civility. To all, have a nice day

He responded the way he did because your posts were relying on hyperbole, platitudes, and misunderstandings of the rules. You haven't been making substantive replies to what anyone has been saying, instead alternating between repeating the same things people have already refuted or getting offended and taking your ball and going home. That said, I don't think you should have taken what he said as personally as you seem to have because, reading it myself, I don't think it was meant to be construed as an attack, just a forthright response.