Are there too many rules in golf?

[David in FL]

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.

[Fourputt]

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.

I hope you aren't holding your breath.  Going by the previous thread on simplification, it will be a long time before anyone even considers attempting that feat.

[David in FL]

I hope you aren't holding your breath.  Going by the previous thread on simplification, it will be a long time before anyone even considers attempting that feat. :doh:

. True dat!

[turtleback]

How about 2 club lengths from nearest relief, no closer to the hole, at any time for any reason with a 2 stroke penalty. Otherwise, play it as it lies.  That would simplify and eliminate a lot of rules.

Huh?  If you can do it any time, then what is it you are taking relief FROM in determining your nearest point of relief?

[Mac62]

How about 2 club lengths from nearest relief, no closer to the hole, at any time for any reason with a 2 stroke penalty. Otherwise, play it as it lies.  That would simplify and eliminate a lot of rules.

What if I'm taking relief from a condition in a hazard and I'm only one club length from the edge - do I get to drop outside the hazard?  How do I determine what the "nearest point of relief" is if it's not defined in the rules?

What happens if I take my 2-stroke drop from the nearest point of relief, but it puts me in a situation where I would have been entitled to free relief under the "real" rules of golf?  Do I still get free relief, do I have to take another 2-stroke penalty to drop again, or do I have to play it from there?

What if I hit a blind tee shot, get over the hill and discover there's OB left, and I went into it.  I never saw the ball go in, so where do I drop?  Just take a guess?  Because if that's the case, I'll guarantee you I guess I hit the best drive of my life and my drop is going to be about 150 yards past where it probably really went OB.  Because we can't be sure and nobody else saw where it went out either.

What if I hit an approach shot that rolls across the green and comes to rest in a sprinkler well in the first cut?  Do I have to take a two-stroke penalty to drop from a condition in which the "real" rules of golf called for free relief?

[Wadess]

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.

I am one of the 15.  I'm familiar with the rules and have a rule book to reference.  Everyone I play with admitted being overwhelmed when they first started playing strictly by the rules. The USGA rule book is 210 pages and then there's a decisions book!

I don't know how I would approach condensing the rules and haven't really thought about it.  That wasn't the question.  The first recorded rules of golf numbered a whopping 13 and would easily fit on a single sheet of paper.

[isukgolf]

I am one of the 15.  I'm familiar with the rules and have a rule book to reference.  Everyone I play with admitted being overwhelmed when they first started playing strictly by the rules. The USGA rule book is 210 pages and then there's a decisions book! I don't know how I would approach condensing the rules and haven't really thought about it.  That wasn't the question.  The first recorded rules of golf numbered a whopping 13 and would easily fit on a single sheet of paper.

What he said ... I simply answered a binary question ... I also understand for some, discussing rules here is like discussing religion ... and I get that, and I respect that. :beer:

[iacas]

I am one of the 15.  I'm familiar with the rules and have a rule book to reference.  Everyone I play with admitted being overwhelmed when they first started playing strictly by the rules. The USGA rule book is 210 pages and then there's a decisions book!

No it isn't. Not really. Bear with me here…

Pages 11 to 17 are a "Quick Guide to the Rules of Golf." They're about all almost anyone needs to know until they get more serious about golf.

Page 146 is the start of "Appendix II." Golfers don't need much beyond page 145. The Index starts in the 180s, after all, because it's so comprehensive and gives you so many ways to find the same information.

The Rules of Golf really begin with the Definitions on page 22 and end on page 145. This includes info on "Bogey, Par, and Stableford" and other stuff that almost never applies. And, we should note, these aren't 8.5" x 11" pages. They're tiny little pages.

Other sports have bigger rules books, and their sports aren't played under such a variety of conditions as we find in golf.

---

The natural follow-up to "yes, there are too many rules in golf" is "which one(s) do you propose removing, and how, and why?"

[Wadess]

I have to disagree.  If the rulebook stopped after the definitions, I would be in complete agreement.  For me, the "fleshing out" of the rules (36-117) turn a gentlemanly set of principles into a law book detailing every possible scenario.  I would wager that lawyer(s) were heavily involved in the writing.  There's even a subsection titled "The facts of the case".

I suppose my fix would be to cut the book off after page 35.

[Fourputt]

I have to disagree.  If the rulebook stopped after the definitions, I would be in complete agreement.  For me, the "fleshing out" of the rules (36-117) turn a gentlemanly set of principles into a law book detailing every possible scenario.  I would wager that lawyer(s) were heavily involved in the writing.  There's even a subsection titled "The facts of the case".

I suppose my fix would be to cut the book off after page 35.

I challenge you to find any person with no knowledge of the game who would have any clue as to how to proceed if they started where you suggest.  There is a definition for stroke, but they don't tell you what to use for making a stroke (there is no definition for club or ball), nothing about what to do if you can't find that ball which isn't defined, certainly nothing about marking and lifting that unknown ball in any of a dozen scenarios where it would be necessary.  They don't even tell you what the object of the game is.

They define a rule, but with your proposal, there would be no rules so we can simplify even more and throw out that definition.

Water hazard?  We know what it is, but what do we do about it if our ball (again what ball, what does it look like?) should end up in one?  Assuming that we figured out what to hit some undefined ball with and where to hit it to.

Darn it anyway.  Here I've been playing golf for 40 years and I've been doing it all wrong by playing by a set of rules that are so complicated that your buddies can't figure them out.  Somehow I don't find that a convincing argument.

[wadesworld]

Man, I must have been a Mensa candidate when I was young, because by like the age of 12, I knew the vast majority of the rules and never once cracked a rule book.  What's wrong with those of you in the "this is too hard" crowd?

This isn't rocket science guys.  Ninety-five percent of your play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.  Despite your protestations about the complexity of the decisions, you *know* that obscure stuff doesn't come up in your day-to-day play except maybe once every few years. The problem isn't the complexity of the rules, the problem is not liking what playing by them does to your score.

[Fourputt]

Man, I must have been a Mensa candidate when I was young, because by like the age of 12, I knew the vast majority of the rules and never once cracked a rule book.  What's wrong with those of you in the "this is too hard" crowd?

This isn't rocket science guys.  Ninety-five percent of your play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.  Despite your protestations about the complexity of the decisions, you *know* that obscure stuff doesn't come up in your day-to-day play except maybe once every few years. The problem isn't the complexity of the rules, the problem is not liking what playing by them does to your score.

A lot of the problem is just being too lazy to bother with learning the rules needed to play the game correctly.  Judging by the current education system in the US, ignorant is the in thing - might as well carry that over into golf.

[disco111]

Ninety-five percent of your play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.  Despite your protestations about the complexity of the decisions, you *know* that obscure stuff doesn't come up in your day-to-day play except maybe once every few years. The problem isn't the complexity of the rules, the problem is not liking what playing by them does to your score.

By your own words, "complexity and obscure" are the key elements of the offering "are there to many rules in golf". Now I've sat and watched the responses to this question and even though somebody decided to keep score, at last count (15 to 18) this is not a runaway posturing for the rules are fine as they are. To answer Wadess assessment, yes the rules committee was and has been rife with lawyers and as I said in the opening post, the party of the first etc, etc. Now even if one of us here, took the time to forward a set of rules, for those that feel what we have is just fine, what would it accomplish? We would still be in a discussion, albeit a new one, dealing with the newly offered rules and the forthcoming plethora of I disagree and yet another vote and chart would appear and the circle would start anew. I honestly don't think that the USGA is monitoring this forum, so as the song goes, "nothing from nothing leaves nothing"

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadesworld

Ninety-five percent of your play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.  Despite your protestations about the complexity of the decisions, you *know* that obscure stuff doesn't come up in your day-to-day play except maybe once every few years. The problem isn't the complexity of the rules, the problem is not liking what playing by them does to your score.

By your own words, "complexity and obscure" are the key elements of the offering "are there to many rules in golf". Now I've sat and watched the responses to this question and even though somebody decided to keep score, at last count (15 to 18) this is not a runaway posturing for the rules are fine as they are. To answer Wadess assessment, yes the rules committee was and has been rife with lawyers and as I said in the opening post, the party of the first etc, etc. Now even if one of us here, took the time to forward a set of rules, for those that feel what we have is just fine, what would it accomplish? We would still be in a discussion, albeit a new one, dealing with the newly offered rules and the forthcoming plethora of I disagree and yet another vote and chart would appear and the circle would start anew. I honestly don't think that the USGA is monitoring this forum, so as the song goes, "nothing from nothing leaves nothing"

The point is that those of us who believe that the rules are already as simplified as they can be and still be workable would be able to offer logical reasons based on the fundamentals of the game that would refute most attempts to write a 3 or 4 page book of rules.  Those who favor simplification only seem to be able to complain, but can't offer any realistic suggestion as to how they would accomplish that simplification without creating a game which is no longer golf.

It's easy to complain, just as easy as it is to not even bother to make an attempt to read or learn the rules as they now exist.  I can carry on a reasonable discussion with Player A who asks "Why is this procedure done this way?"  I have a lot more difficulty having that discussion with Player B who opens with "This is a stupid rule.  It needs to be changed."  Player A shows some degree of interest in understanding the rule, even if he still might not agree completely with the intent.  Player B goes into it with a negative attitude from the start, and like some threads on this forum, you just end up talking in circles.  He doesn't really care why the rule is like it is, he only wants some ephemeral change that he can't define.  Most of the time the explanations we offer never penetrate his shield of negativity.

[turtleback]

I am one of the 15.  I'm familiar with the rules and have a rule book to reference.  Everyone I play with admitted being overwhelmed when they first started playing strictly by the rules. The USGA rule book is 210 pages and then there's a decisions book!

I don't know how I would approach condensing the rules and haven't really thought about it.  That wasn't the question.  The first recorded rules of golf numbered a whopping 13 and would easily fit on a single sheet of paper.

That is bull, IMO.  You can play perfectly legal golf without knowing all of those details.  The things people complain about in the rules aren't the complicated things it is the simple things.  Like yes, you DO have to hit out of that divot.  No, you don't get to drop a ball when you cannot find yours.   Etc.

And try to run a PGA tournament based on those 13 rules, which are wholly inadequate for any kind of serious competitive play.

Man, I must have been a Mensa candidate when I was young, because by like the age of 12, I knew the vast majority of the rules and never once cracked a rule book.  What's wrong with those of you in the "this is too hard" crowd?

This isn't rocket science guys.  Ninety-five percent of your play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.  Despite your protestations about the complexity of the decisions, you *know* that obscure stuff doesn't come up in your day-to-day play except maybe once every few years. The problem isn't the complexity of the rules, the problem is not liking what playing by them does to your score.

Exactly, with a little laziness added in for the more obscure things.

[Wadess]

I challenge you to find any person with no knowledge of the game who would have any clue as to how to proceed if they started where you suggest.  There is a definition for stroke, but they don't tell you what to use for making a stroke (there is no definition for club or ball), nothing about what to do if you can't find that ball which isn't defined, certainly nothing about marking and lifting that unknown ball in any of a dozen scenarios where it would be necessary.  They don't even tell you what the object of the game is.

They define a rule, but with your proposal, there would be no rules so we can simplify even more and throw out that definition.

Water hazard?  We know what it is, but what do we do about it if our ball (again what ball, what does it look like?) should end up in one?  Assuming that we figured out what to hit some undefined ball with and where to hit it to.

Darn it anyway.  Here I've been playing golf for 40 years and I've been doing it all wrong by playing by a set of rules that are so complicated that your buddies can't figure them out.  Somehow I don't find that a convincing argument.

As iacas already pointed out, pages 11-17 are the Quick guide to the rules of golf.  I have a hard time believing anyone caring enough about the game to look at the rules wouldn't know what a club or ball were, but that could be easily fixed by adding two definitions.  A water hazard and how to address ending up in one is covered on page 16.

As for the rest of the vitrol, I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities by attacking the holy rules of golf by answering the original question.  I have no desire to get into an intellectual pissing match.

I gave an extremely quick cut as to what I would change without much thought as that wasn't part of the original question.  I also don't have a desire to fix it.  If that makes me lazy, so be it.  I have better things to do with my time than worship at the altar of the USGA.  The USGA spent almost 3 million on the rules last year.  They could simplify if they chose to.

[Wadess]

That is bull, IMO.  You can play perfectly legal golf without knowing all of those details.  The things people complain about in the rules aren't the complicated things it is the simple things.  Like yes, you DO have to hit out of that divot.  No, you don't get to drop a ball when you cannot find yours.   Etc.

And try to run a PGA tournament based on those 13 rules, which are wholly inadequate for any kind of serious competitive play.

Exactly, with a little laziness added in for the more obscure things.

You don't have to run a professional tournament using the same rules.  Using football as an example, the NFL has a different rule book than the NCAA or NFHS.

[Wadess]

If you want to see the growth of the rules, check out http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1899.html .  You can go back and look at 18th and 19th century rules too.