Are there too many rules in golf?

[wadesworld]

The young people I know who golf, go out to whack the ball around and have a few beers and some fun.

They are not considered to be playing "golf" by the purist.

Which is why there are no kids.

That and the cost.

These days people dont have time for 4 hours of overly complex rules, honors and loss of distance!

Play some ready golf and have fun!

but what do I know I am not a purist!

Huh?

What does how a "purist" considers what they're doing have anything to do with whether kids play golf or not?  How would they even encounter a purist?

I'm not sure what rules have to do with "loss of distance," but regardless, if that's the game they want to play, what's preventing them from playing it?

If you want to go out, whack the ball, have beers and have fun, do it.

[Asheville]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asheville

Were you the guy who, when the instructor asked if anyone scored a 100%, held up his hand and then got up and left?

Heh, no.  I did well on the test, but not close to 100%.

I was the guy who introduced himself as "just a golfer who was crazy enough to come."

As I remember ... you got a good laugh out of that line!

[isukgolf]

You can play recreational golf without knowing the intricacies of every rule, and that's EXACTLY how 98% of golfers play it.

Just a thought ... given that a very high percentage of golfers play "recreational" golf, should there be recreational golf rules? Similar to basketball and baseball.

[saevel25]

Just a thought ... given that a very high percentage of golfers play "recreational" golf, should there be recreational golf rules? Similar to basketball and baseball.

Nope. Just let them enjoy the game how they want.

[Elmer]

Huh?

What does how a "purist" considers what they're doing have anything to do with whether kids play golf or not?  How would they even encounter a purist?

I'm not sure what rules have to do with "loss of distance," but regardless, if that's the game they want to play, what's preventing them from playing it?

If you want to go out, whack the ball, have beers and have fun, do it.

2 "kids" go out to play a round and have fun and are paired with a purist. Purist calls them out for not adhering to the intricacies of every rule, maybe the purist points to every violation and corrects them on it at every turn.

Maybe the purist tells them, "that's not how the game is played"

I have been paired with people who do just that. Sure the guy was being a no it all Richard, but  he want to reinforce that he know the rules and my practice round is wrong because I grounded a club in a bunker.

Loss of distance and stroke when you hit your ball OB. 90% of the golfers I see go drop where the ball went OB and they play from there.

My point was when a purist and a hacker collide sometime it can discourage some from coming back.

Just a thought ... given that a very high percentage of golfers play "recreational" golf, should there be recreational golf rules? Similar to basketball and baseball.

The pros have rules changes that go into effect for them before we get them.

So why not.

How does allowing some hacker on a course who wants to use a long putter affect anyone? Especially if they are out of there playing for fun?

all type of recreational leagues and sports change the rules from what the pro's do.

Why shouldnt golf?

You want to "pretend" you are on tour. Fine, have fun.

But let us have fun!

[wadesworld]

2 "kids" go out to play a round and have fun and are paired with a purist. Purist calls them out for not adhering to the intricacies of every rule, maybe the purist points to every violation and corrects them on it at every turn.

Maybe the purist tells them, "that's not how the game is played"

I have been paired with people who do just that. Sure the guy was being a no it all Richard, but  he want to reinforce that he know the rules and my practice round is wrong because I grounded a club in a bunker.

Loss of distance and stroke when you hit your ball OB. 90% of the golfers I see go drop where the ball went OB and they play from there.

My point was when a purist and a hacker collide sometime it can discourage some from coming back.

The pros have rules changes that go into effect for them before we get them.

So why not.

How does allowing some hacker on a course who wants to use a long putter affect anyone? Especially if they are out of there playing for fun?

all type of recreational leagues and sports change the rules from what the pro's do.

Why shouldnt golf?

You want to "pretend" you are on tour. Fine, have fun.

But let us have fun!

Your experience (if in fact, true) is an outlier.  I've been playing golf for 40+ years and I have NEVER had someone chastise me on the rules.  It simply doesn't happen enough to have any correlation to keeping people away from golf.

If you want to drop where your ball went out or use a long putter, knock yourself out.  If you play golf for 50 years, you might get two people who might remark "you know that's not legal, right?" But that's very different than being berated about the rules.

Have all the fun you want.  If you play with me, I don't care if you pick the ball up off the tee and drop it on the green a foot from the hole, knock it in and write down a 2.

However, like so many who protest so vociferously, I suspect your objection is not really because you're constantly encountering purists who are making the game "unfun" for you.  Rather, I think the reason is because you don't like what your score becomes if you do choose to play by the rules.  You have more fun when you play "relaxed" because you score better.  There again, knock yourself out. As long as you're not in a tournament, nobody cares.

[isukgolf]

@Elmer just want to make sure you know i was not bashing you; in fact, I was trying to support you. I have all people, can not cast the first stone on playing by the "rules." I have learned a while ago, not to argue for relaxed rules here, and I have to admit I have really seen the other side of the "purest" point of view ... and respect both sides of the coin, but as many have stated, in the end I play the game that brings me the most enjoyment. Admittedly as my game improves I do incorporate more of the "real" rules. the biggest lesson I have learned is you can record how much enjoyment I had playing with friends on the score card regardless of the number. :beer:

[18rounds]

The sentence in bold is not true, not even close.  In fact, we embrace discussion.

This is however a Rules forum, and when incorrect or incomplete information is posted, particularly in the context of being stated as true, then corrections will follow.  We have invited anyone who wishes to make the attempt to make proposals for simplification of the rules, but we reserve the right to dispute those proposals, and we base our arguments on our knowledge and understanding of the basic fundamentals that provide the basis for playing the game.  While it's true that a game could be developed that was similar to golf, played with golf implements, but without the foundation of logic that drives the rules of golf, that game would not be golf.

Golf is not only a game of physical ability, but is also a test of mental focus and toughness.  Simplifying the rules also has the effect of dumbing down the game itself.  If a person wishes to play a simplified game, he is more than welcome to do so.  He and his friends can play any game they wish as long as it includes sufficient etiquette so that they do not have a negative effect on other players or on the course.  Nobody here will deny him that right.  His desire does not lead to an inevitable need for changing the rules of golf to suit him.  In fact just the opposite.  If he chooses not to play by the current rules, what leads you to believe that he would be any  more likely to follow a new set?  Since most new players haven't a clue what the rules of golf are, any change certainly won't affect new players coming into the game.

Part of the fascination of golf for most of us here is a mix of the game's inherent difficulty, and the opportunity to play the same game with the same rules as the best professionals in the world.  Through handicapping, we can even play with them without having to change or relearn the rules we play by.  There are very few competitive sports for which that can be said.  Bifurcation of the rules would remove, to a greater or lesser extent, both of those attractions from the game.

So you are welcome to post and discuss the rules along with everyone else, but keep in mind that many of us do not feel that there are too many rules, nor are we able to find many instances where a significant change would benefit the game.  We also know enough about the rules to be able to intelligently and logically refute most (not all) attempts at simplification.

The attitudes in this thread are specific to the rules forum.  As has been said in many, many threads, you come to the rules forum, you're going to get a rules answer.  When people propose changes or a "more casual" approach to the rules, they invariably do so without having thought through the impact of the "come on guys, loosen up" proposal.  Writing good rules is really, really hard, and the people who recognize that and who have spent time and energy understanding why that's the case are not simply being stuffy and exclusive.  They argue the point vociferioiusly because they've spent time considering the alternatives and understand why the alternatives wouldn't work.

The assertion that beginners, kids, women or any other group are turned off of golf because of the size of the rule book or the complexity of the rules is simply false.  Golfers don't start the game by studying the rules.  They go out and play the game.  They learn some rules from their playing partners as they go along.  If they get into organized golf at some point, they learn a lot more and might even open a rule book then if required by their coach.

It's no different than other sports.  A person who plays pickup basketball likely cannot tell you about the 5-second rule for throwing the ball in. A person who has played organized basketball likely could.  I played basketball as a youngster, and when I just googled 5-second rule, I found there are a lot more cases of the 5-second rule of which I was not aware.  You can play recreational basketball without being aware of the nuances of the 5-second rule or the complexities of substation rules.  However, the same is true with golf.  You can play recreational golf without knowing the intricacies of every rule, and that's EXACTLY how 98% of golfers play it.

I play golf every week with random people.  Do you think I've EVER run over and said "You can't do that!" when they take an illegal drop? Nope.  I don't say a word. If someone asks I'll inform them of the proper procedure, but I don't care if they toss their ball up on the green.  The one argument being made here is "if you toss your ball up on the green, don't tell me you beat me with an 85, when I shot 90 without tossing my ball up on the green."  In short, you have to play the same game to compare scores.

Both very valid replies.

Maybe you are right.

My perception is we still have an image problem that has its base in this issue.

What other activity would you ever do that people brag about carrying a rule book written by lawyers along with them?

Not sure. Possibly this is the best we can do. From a marketability of the game viewpoint I think we have a problem. 35% of the people who have voted on this poll think their are too many rules. That is 35% of people engrossed in golf enough to have a user name on this site. Seems high. I wonder what the number would be like if you asked the pool of potential golfers?

Again, I am not having this discussion for me. I have a general knowledge of the rules and very much enjoy the game.

Interesting discussion.

[Elmer]

@Elmer just want to make sure you know i was not bashing you; in fact, I was trying to support you. I have all people, can not cast the first stone on playing by the "rules."

I have learned a while ago, not to argue for relaxed rules here, and I have to admit I have really seen the other side of the "purest" point of view ... and respect both sides of the coin, but as many have stated, in the end I play the game that brings me the most enjoyment.

Admittedly as my game improves I do incorporate more of the "real" rules.

the biggest lesson I have learned is you can record how much enjoyment I had playing with friends on the score card regardless of the number.

@isukgolf I understand and agree.

I play by the rules, unless I am playing in a league (which is already been determined to not be "real golf) or tournament that bends them everyone.

You play your game, I will play mine. you write down your score, I write down mine. The only time our games will cross paths is if we are playing for something. Then we have to play by the same rules.

But for a novice who is hitting over 100 and penalize them for grounding a club etc... is just insult to injury. Let them learn the game and then work up to applying rules.

And what about someone who is not even keeping score?

Do the rules even apply ?

[krupa]

Not sure. Possibly this is the best we can do. From a marketability of the game viewpoint I think we have a problem. 35% of the people who have voted on this poll think their are too many rules. That is 35% of people engrossed in golf enough to have a user name on this site. Seems high. I wonder what the number would be like if you asked the pool of potential golfers?

Whoa there... that is 35% of the people who voted in the poll. There were only 45 total votes (as I type this) which is hardly enough to draw any conclusions from.

I don't think potential golfers would really care about the number of rules; they're out there having fun.  Maybe I'm lucky, the local public courses let me out as a single and when I do join up with people or play through, everyone has been very nice and encouraged me to break every rule necessary in order to enjoy myself.  I'm not playing for anything other than enjoyment, so why not?

[Big C]

And what about someone who is not even keeping score?

Do the rules even apply ?

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that should be universally applied across all forms of the game is proper etiquette, courtesy and respect for your fellow playing partners.

If someone is not keeping score and wants to bend every rule in the book, I have no problem with that, as long as they do not cross the line into poor etiquette.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 18rounds

Both very valid replies.

Maybe you are right.

My perception is we still have an image problem that has its base in this issue.

What other activity would you ever do that people brag about carrying a rule book written by lawyers along with them?

I don't brag about carrying a rule book, but it's there (or these days it's on my phone) when I need it.  Only in golf is it specifically stated that rules knowledge is solely the responsibility of the player.  Most other recreational sports leagues have referees or umpires or the like to take care of rules issues.  If they are just pickup games, then the rule book is usually irrelevant, the same as in casual golf for most players.  I played golf for about 15 years without ever seeing or needing a rule book.  When I wanted to start building a handicap and then begin playing tournament golf, I needed to be better informed, so I took an interest in the rules.  If a player, any player, wants to establish and maintain an accurate handicap, then the rules are essential.  You can't play with Group A one day under their rules, then play with Group B the next with a different idea of what is permissible behavior, especially if neither group actually plays by the rules of golf.  The two scores will not have a reasonable basis for comparison.  A handicap established in that manner would have no meaning.

Quote:

Not sure. Possibly this is the best we can do. From a marketability of the game viewpoint I think we have a problem. 35% of the people who have voted on this poll think their are too many rules. That is 35% of people engrossed in golf enough to have a user name on this site. Seems high. I wonder what the number would be like if you asked the pool of potential golfers?

16 agree votes out of over 2700 views.  A lot of people didn't feel it was important enough to them to bother to vote, and that's how it is on the course too. I admit that a lot of the those "views" are repeat visitors, but still that's a lot of "I don't care" or "it doesn't matter to me."   Most new golfers would be among those  "I don't care" non-voters.  Players have the choice to play by the Rules of Golf or by the rules of imagination.  Players out just knocking a ball around the course with no more than the vaguest idea of the rules are still playing by their idea of what golf is - have at it and have fun.  Despite my background of playing by the rules pretty strictly since the late 1980's, I would never offer unsolicited suggestions in a casual round - tournaments are another thing entirely.

Quote:

Again, I am not having this discussion for me. I have a general knowledge of the rules and very much enjoy the game.

Interesting discussion.

Glad you enjoy it here, hope to see you as an active participant. We have some great discussions on this forum, and if we sometimes seem a bit over the top, it's only because we are so passionate about golf.

[natureboy]

You actually have it backwards. Those rules outline some of the few exceptions to the basic principle that we play the ball as it lies, and the course as we find it. If there was any entitlement at all to a free, unobstructed swing, they wouldn't be needed. You could simply place the ball anywhere you like and carry on.

It's also worth noting that you can easily be in a situation where you are able to remove a loose impediment, or take relief for an embedded ball, and still have an obstructed swing from which you're entitled no free relief.

You are jumping to conclusions about my point. Are there areas in which you are not entitled to free relief for an embedded ball? What typically characterizes closely mown areas? What physical characteristics define a teeing ground? Does fairly taking your stance require you to stand on your tiptoes so that you minimally disturb the growing grass of a closely mown area? That's where I think the rules imply that you will sometimes be entitled to a swing.

I do understand that the rules start from the other direction, but I think a reading that you are not ever entitled to a swing in your journey around the course just because the rules don't explicitly state so isn't quite right.

Yeah.  To infer that the player is entitled to an unobstructed swing at any time is reading an interpretation into the rules which is entirely unjustified.  While there are some levels of relief provided when proceeding under certain rules, that relief applies only to the specific condition that the procedure applies to, and such relief can actually put the player in a position of greater interference from a different condition.  Taking relief from a cart path or GUR or casual water can easily result in the NPR lying in the middle of a large bush or patch of weeds which one clublength won't relieve you from, or it may put you in deep native rough from which play might be impossible.  Relief for lie, stance and swing from a large obstruction could put the player dead behind the obstruction with no shot but a pitch out.

The only guarantees under the rules are that you are entitled to a procedure to follow to move your ball to a location where some sort of stroke may be made to continue play.  That position may or may not result in a clear swing or line of play.  Any belief of entitlement is purely imaginary.

I didn't say that. I was responding to a post that the rules don't explicitly entitle you to any swing. I responded that I felt they implied a swing entitlement (but not a good lie) in certain circumstances. See above. In fact in another post I commended added modifying language to 'fairly take stance' that a player is not entitled to an unobstrocted swing.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

You actually have it backwards. Those rules outline some of the few exceptions to the basic principle that we play the ball as it lies, and the course as we find it. If there was any entitlement at all to a free, unobstructed swing, they wouldn't be needed. You could simply place the ball anywhere you like and carry on.

It's also worth noting that you can easily be in a situation where you are able to remove a loose impediment, or take relief for an embedded ball, and still have an obstructed swing from which you're entitled no free relief.

You are jumping to conclusions about my point. Are there areas in which you are not entitled to free relief for an embedded ball? What typically characterizes closely mown areas? What physical characteristics define a teeing ground? Does fairly taking your stance require you to stand on your tiptoes so that you minimally disturb the growing grass of a closely mown area? That's where I think the rules imply that you will sometimes be entitled to a swing.

I do understand that the rules start from the other direction, but I think a reading that you are not ever entitled to a swing in your journey around the course just because the rules don't explicitly state so isn't quite right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Yeah.  To infer that the player is entitled to an unobstructed swing at any time is reading an interpretation into the rules which is entirely unjustified.  While there are some levels of relief provided when proceeding under certain rules, that relief applies only to the specific condition that the procedure applies to, and such relief can actually put the player in a position of greater interference from a different condition.  Taking relief from a cart path or GUR or casual water can easily result in the NPR lying in the middle of a large bush or patch of weeds which one clublength won't relieve you from, or it may put you in deep native rough from which play might be impossible.  Relief for lie, stance and swing from a large obstruction could put the player dead behind the obstruction with no shot but a pitch out.

The only guarantees under the rules are that you are entitled to a procedure to follow to move your ball to a location where some sort of stroke may be made to continue play.  That position may or may not result in a clear swing or line of play.  Any belief of entitlement is purely imaginary.

I didn't say that. I was responding to a post that the rules don't explicitly entitle you to any swing. I responded that I felt they implied a swing entitlement (but not a good lie) in certain circumstances. See above. In fact in another post I commended added modifying language to 'fairly take stance' that a player is not entitled to an unobstrocted swing.

The player is not entitled to a good lie or an unobstructed swing anywhere except maybe on the tee and the putting green, and even there it isn't stated as such (if the player is stupid enough to tee his ball too close to the tee marker, all bets are off ).  Elsewhere it is strictly the luck of the draw.  One would expect to have an unobstructed swing on if his ball lies in the fairway, but I have actually seen instances where branches hung low enough that they could interfere with the top of the backswing, even on a fairway shot.

[natureboy]

The player is not entitled to a good lie or an unobstructed swing anywhere except maybe on the tee and the putting green, and even there it isn't stated as such (if the player is stupid enough to tee his ball too close to the tee marker, all bets are off   ).  Elsewhere it is strictly the luck of the draw.  One would expect to have an unobstructed swing on if his ball lies in the fairway, but I have actually seen instances where branches hung low enough that they could interfere with the top of the backswing, even on a fairway shot.

Yes, I know how the rules are worded, and I know sometimes trees sit in the middle of fairway, but then there would still be 'a swing' albeit obstructed.

Thank you for still picking up on the drift of my point about sometimes 'being entitled to' (really a reasonable expectation to have) a swing .

[David in FL]

Thank you for still picking up on the drift of my point about sometimes 'being entitled to' (really a reasonable expectation to have) a swing .

Try as you might to inaccurately twist @Fourputt 's post, there is a HUGE difference between having a reasonable expectation of anything , and being entitled to it under the rules. When I hit a good shot down the middle of the fairway, I expect to have a good lie. Sadly, that's not always the case. Such is the wonderful nature of golf, and the reason that the Rules need to be written as precisely as they are.

[Lihu]

Interestingly, 15 people have voted that there are too many rules in golf, but at my quick count, only 3 have actually posted here.

I'd still like to hear from those that think there are too many rules, and what their recommendations would be to reduce those rules, while still retaining the nature of the actual game of golf.

Many of those rules help you reduce strokes too! I admit to not memorizing enough rules, but to those who never want to learn them.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadesworld

You can play recreational golf without knowing the intricacies of every rule, and that's EXACTLY how 98% of golfers play it.

Just a thought ... given that a very high percentage of golfers play "recreational" golf, should there be recreational golf rules? Similar to basketball and baseball.

Do recreational basketball players keep their stats and compute their point per game, rebounds per game, etc., and compare them with other folks?  Apples and oranges, my friend.  There already are recreational rules for golf.  They are basically, do whatever you want so long as a) it is not a formal competition, b) you do not maintain a handicap.

2 "kids" go out to play a round and have fun and are paired with a purist. Purist calls them out for not adhering to the intricacies of every rule, maybe the purist points to every violation and corrects them on it at every turn.

Maybe the purist tells them, "that's not how the game is played"

I have been paired with people who do just that. Sure the guy was being a no it all Richard, but  he want to reinforce that he know the rules and my practice round is wrong because I grounded a club in a bunker.

And I have never been in a group here this happened.  Personally the only time I have ever talked about rules with people I was playing with were a) if they asked me what the rule was for a situation, or b) they were in a situation where they were entitled to relief of some kind but did not seem aware of it and I let them know they had another option available to them.

I play by the rules, unless I am playing in a league (which is already been determined to not be "real golf) or tournament that bends them everyone.

You play your game, I will play mine. you write down your score, I write down mine. The only time our games will cross paths is if we are playing for something. Then we have to play by the same rules.

But for a novice who is hitting over 100 and penalize them for grounding a club etc... is just insult to injury. Let them learn the game and then work up to applying rules.

And what about someone who is not even keeping score?

Do the rules even apply ?

And you have never seen anyone here say otherwise.  But do not come here with your own little pet set of modifications and expect absolution.

And you seem fixated that someone once told you you shouldn't be grounding your club in the bunker.  But I understand, I just cannot seem to enjoy the game without grounding my cub in the bunker ether.

Whoa there... that is 35% of the people who voted in the poll.  There were only 45 total votes (as I type this) which is hardly enough to draw any conclusions from.

I don't think potential golfers would really care about the number of rules; they're out there having fun.  Maybe I'm lucky, the local public courses let me out as a single and when I do join up with people or play through, everyone has been very nice and encouraged me to break every rule necessary in order to enjoy myself.  I'm not playing for anything other than enjoyment, so why not?

Many of us thought the question too silly to bother voting.  This nonsense about the rules inhibiting the growth of golf  IMO, always comes as a pretext for people who are not novices or beginners, who just do not want to play by the rules.  It has nothing to do with novices, IMO.

The complainers can already play any way they like.  And this absurd notion of an army of rules police out there chiding complete strangers they happen to get paired with for their rules infractions is nonsense.  In over 40 years of playing in a variety of geographic and social venues I have not noticed any such thing.  And the few times it HAS happened the person doing to chiding or scolding was usually wrong about the rules.  More people are counseled to ignore the rules (oh, just throw it out, move your ball from that divot, you don't have to hit from that bare dirt, that's good, etc.) than are EVER chided about breaking them.

The real question is why it drives people crazy that some of us understand the reason for the rules and choose to play by them.  I've never told anyone what they should do, rules-wise, on the course yet I have often been told to break rules and then am regarded as some kind of weirdo when I choose not to.

It isn't that they want the freedom to play how they want, they want to be able to play however they want AND claim their score is legitimate.  And they realize that the fact that there are people who play by the rules flies in the face of the legitimacy of their score.  So when they say throw it out from behind that bush and I choose not to, it is brought home to them with no words or actions of mine, that they are wrong which they already really knew deep down.  But my very actions punctured their facade that what THEY were doing was OK and their score was still somehow legitimate.  And although I never say a word about what they did, they probably considered me a rules nazi because I chose to play by the rules.  Not because of anything I said or did to them.  My example was enough to make them unhappy.

But the sad fact is that we could make every change they want and they still would find some inconvenience in the "simplified" rules and they would deal with it the same way they deal with the inconveniences in the current rules: they would ignore the rule.  And then criticize those of use who chose to follow the rule.  So I am damned if I will ever agree to change the rules at the behest of people who will never play by the rules anyway.

My answer to them is:  play however you want if that is fun for you, but don't try to take away MY FUN of playing a difficult game BY THE RULES.

AS I used to tell my students, "that's hard" is no excuse for not doing something.  And sometimes it is exactly the reason FOR doing something.