Are there too many rules in golf?

[disco111]

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.

Even the pro's don't know all the rules and it's their livelihood. They even have a rules person in attendance, to interpret and clarify during the round, so where does that leave the rest of us. As wadesworld stated, 95% of play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules and he's one of your counterparts that feels the rules are just fine as they are. Kind of a contradiction of sorts isn't it. As I said prior, even if one of us offered up a set of rules, here on this forum, it wouldn't make a difference. You apparently missed that part of my post. Now referring back to the pro's again, even they campaigned years ago to have some rulings changed and it was to no avail. They are the pinnacle of the sport and even they thought some things were wrong. Case in point, when Ray Floyd was the players rep, the OB stroke and distance was challenged, under the aspect that it was double indemnity. How about the interpretations of rulings that got folks DQ'd. Example, Craig Stadler kneeling on a towel to hit from under a tree - ruling he improved his stance, but you can improve your stance in a bunker and not be penalized. If he put on his rain pants it would have served the same purpose but no DQ.

Now as for ("accomplish that simplification without creating a game which is no longer golf"), it was called golf when it was only the original 13 rules and again, to restate wadesworld, 95% of play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.

[iacas]

@Wadess , please multiquote when possible: .

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.

Those simple rules are fine for getting someone started, but they don't address everything that can occur on the golf course.

The USGA spent almost 3 million on the rules last year.  They could simplify if they chose to.

How? Propose something. Let's hear it. What could you simplify without fundamentally changing the game. And I don't mean something like "all drops are two clublengths." I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that it wouldn't fundamentally change the game but it also wouldn't simplify much.

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.

That golf has the same Rules is one of the things that set it apart. And golf is one of the sports where a guy can go from playing in a weekend foursome with members of his club to playing in a major championship.

Golf has one ruling body (in the U.S./Mexico). The NFL has its own ruling body, while the NCAA and high school football have their own, too. So why should one ruling body have different sets of rules? Isn't that the opposite of simplifying things? What could be simpler than one set of rules for the ENTIRE sport?!

Now as for ("accomplish that simplification without creating a game which is no longer golf"), it was called golf when it was only the original 13 rules and again, to restate wadesworld, 95% of play is governed by 7 or 8 basic rules.

Then take up the challenge I offered. Write a simplified set of Rules that doesn't fundamentally change the game and which adheres to the principles of the game.

I'll give $500 to someone who can do it. I'm sure we could get others to chip in as well.

[disco111]

@Wadess, please multiquote when possible:

Then take up the challenge I offered. Write a simplified set of Rules that doesn't fundamentally change the game and which adheres to the principles of the game.

I'll give $500 to someone who can do it. I'm sure we could get others to chip in as well.

Why!, it's a moot pont. You won't change your position and neither will the USGA or R&A.; Besides,95% of us already play with the 7 or 8 basic rules, that wadesworld eluded to and he's in your camp. Since he's the author of this statement, I'm sure he would be best to stipulate those rules and then both our positions will be achieved and you can send the $500 to him.

[iacas]

Why!, it's a moot pont. You won't change your position and neither will the USGA or R&A.; Besides,95% of us already play with the 7 or 8 basic rules, that wadesworld eluded to and he's in your camp. Since he's the author of this statement, I'm sure he would be best to stipulate those rules and then both our positions will be achieved and you can send the $500 to him.

I'll gladly change my position if someone can do it. In a heartbeat. I just don't think it will be possible. The 7 or 8 rules don't cover all of golf. Just the most common things.

[dkolo]

Why!, it's a moot pont. You won't change your position and neither will the USGA or R&A.; Besides,95% of us already play with the 7 or 8 basic rules, that wadesworld eluded to and he's in your camp. Since he's the author of this statement, I'm sure he would be best to stipulate those rules and then both our positions will be achieved and you can send the $500 to him.

I get the impression that you're just arguing that the rules you use most often are the ones you'd like to consider the concise rules, and when you'll come up against a situation that was covered by the other rules you cut out, your reaction will be "screw it" and make it up as you go along. All we're saying is that the rules as they currently exist, with arguably a little possible tinkering around the edges, are as concise as they can be to not leave any gaps in their ability to cover all possible situations you might come across. You can argue specific rules should be different, but the totality of such efforts won't result in any sort of significant reduction in the complexity or size of the rule book.

[Fourputt]

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.

I have, many times.  I've read most of the key revisions at one time or another.  It interesting to look through and find when certain rules or procedures were added or modified more or less to their current form.  The reason that those rules changed through 300 year of evolution is because they were inadequate in their earlier form.

Actually the most important part of the book is Pages 9 & 10 - "How to Use the Rules Book".  These are the base tenets that rules officials use when investigating an incident to make a ruling.  Understanding those key words is crucial, and the paragraph "What is the Ruling" lists the questions that the RO asks in getting to the heart of the incident, and in determining where to find the answer.

Then the real key is in the last paragraph on Page 10 - if, after examining your current knowledge of the rules you still aren't sure what to do, then play the course as you find it and play the ball as it lies - in a rules sense, it's safest in that case to do nothing before you make your next stroke.  The only time you can go wrong with this is if your ball lies in an area from which play is prohibited.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

@Wadess, please multiquote when possible:

Then take up the challenge I offered. Write a simplified set of Rules that doesn't fundamentally change the game and which adheres to the principles of the game.

I'll give $500 to someone who can do it. I'm sure we could get others to chip in as well.

Why!, it's a moot pont. You won't change your position and neither will the USGA or R&A.; Besides,95% of us already play with the 7 or 8 basic rules, that wadesworld eluded to and he's in your camp. Since he's the author of this statement, I'm sure he would be best to stipulate those rules and then both our positions will be achieved and you can send the $500 to him.

It has nothing to do with changing a position, it has to do with someone meeting the challenge successfully.  If you can write a set of simplified rules that will address all of the current requirements for play without inventing a new game in the process, then we would gladly endorse it.  I know that I don't think that it can be done, and certainly not by someone who isn't already an expert on the current rules. I believe Erik feels the same.

In order to accomplish that goal, a person would have to know the current rules intimately, and more importantly, be rock solid on the principles behind the rules, because they are the true foundation for the game.   If one is that conversant with the rules, he would already be on the same page with us, because he would know that what we have is as concise as it can be and still have the ability to equitably address any issue faced on the course.

[iacas]

It has nothing to do with changing a position, it has to do with someone meeting the challenge successfully.  If you can write a set of simplified rules that will address all of the current requirements for play without inventing a new game in the process, then we would gladly endorse it.  I know that I don't think that it can be done, and certainly not by someone who isn't already an expert on the current rules. I believe Erik feels the same.

I'd probably be close, but a bit more lax, than you Rick.

For example, I could see making all drops the same # of clublengths. Then you could define the procedure once and just say that the player must (or is entitled to, etc.) "take a drop" and be done with it. That might save a page, though.

For example, you could remove the stroke and distance penalty, but you violate the principles then by letting someone drop in the case of a lost ball, because you have no idea where it ended up, and the penalty should never put someone in a better position. So if you have stroke and distance for lost balls, you may as well just use it for OB balls too. And make it an option for unplayable balls, water hazards, etc.

So I do agree that someone would have an awfully hard time simplifying the Rules.

Consider it, @disco111 : You hit a ball into a field. The field can contain rocks, sand, a stand bag (yours, your opponent's, someone else's?), a tractor, a bathroom, a rain shelter, a dog, rough, water, sand, trees, bushes, someone's house, a pear, a half-eaten pear, a snake, an anthill, etc. You could be standing on or in many of those conditions, or your ball could be, or they could affect your stance or swing. Or you might lose your ball, or someone else might step on it, it may be embedded in something, it may fly into something, or bounce off something, it may move after you address it, you might whiff, you might double-hit it, you might hit it off someone, your opponent, or a gallery member, or the dog, snake, ant-hill, etc.

And that's just one shot. Never mind what you do if you play that shot out of turn, from the wrong teeing ground, with the wrong ball, with an illegal stroke… and on and on and on and on and on.

I would gladly offer you $500, and I think we could get you a LOT more, if you could devise a simplified Rules of Golf that didn't compromise the Principles.

[wadesworld]

Consider it, @disco111: You hit a ball into a field. The field can contain rocks, sand, a stand bag (yours, your opponent's, someone else's?), a tractor, a bathroom, a rain shelter, a dog, rough, water, sand, trees, bushes, someone's house, a pear, a half-eaten pear, a snake, an anthill, etc. You could be standing on or in many of those conditions, or your ball could be, or they could affect your stance or swing. Or you might lose your ball, or someone else might step on it, it may be embedded in something, it may fly into something, or bounce off something, it may move after you address it, you might whiff, you might double-hit it, you might hit it off someone, your opponent, or a gallery member, or the dog, snake, ant-hill, etc.

And that's just one shot. Never mind what you do if you play that shot out of turn, from the wrong teeing ground, with the wrong ball, with an illegal stroke… and on and on and on and on and on.

Well stated.  Do you see the issue @disco111 ?  Well guess what, Erik's numerous examples are in no way a complete list of what could happen.  Which is why we have a lot of decisions, even though we'd prefer not to.

While 95% of our golf is played under 7-8 basic rules, that in no way means you can use only those 7-8 rules for the entire game.

I do believe there is some room for simplification in the rules.  If it were up to me, I'd do the following:

a)  Make all relief two club lengths

b)  Eliminate drops.  All movement of the ball is done via placing.

c)  Remove the distinction between boundary fences/stakes and other obstructions.  You would get immovable obstruction relief from a boundary fence (only if possible on the course-side)

I understand the reason for each of those and if they stay the way they are, it won't bother me a bit as they do have their roots in the principles. However, my personal feeling is the impact of simplifying those rules would be more beneficial than the harm of doing so.

[iacas]

I do believe there is some room for simplification in the rules.  If it were up to me, I'd do the following:

a)  Make all relief two club lengths

b)  Eliminate drops.  All movement of the ball is done via placing.

c)  Remove the distinction between boundary fences/stakes and other obstructions.  You would get immovable obstruction relief from a boundary fence (only if possible on the course-side)

I could agree to all of those. Like you, I understand the reasons why they haven't been changed, but with two seconds of consideration I'd agree that they'd simplify and the benefits would outweigh the costs. That's only given two seconds of thought, so I reserve the right (always!) to change my mind, but at first blush I'd be okay with those.

But what else is there? Because let's be honest… the # of club lengths you get doesn't really shorten the Rules very much. It simplifies a little, but only a little.

I've gotta get ready for a soccer game.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadesworld

I do believe there is some room for simplification in the rules.  If it were up to me, I'd do the following:

a)  Make all relief two club lengths

b)  Eliminate drops.  All movement of the ball is done via placing.

c)  Remove the distinction between boundary fences/stakes and other obstructions.  You would get immovable obstruction relief from a boundary fence (only if possible on the course-side)

I could agree to all of those. Like you, I understand the reasons why they haven't been changed, but with two seconds of consideration I'd agree that they'd simplify and the benefits would outweigh the costs. That's only given two seconds of thought, so I reserve the right (always!) to change my mind, but at first blush I'd be okay with those.

But what else is there? Because let's be honest… the # of club lengths you get doesn't really shorten the Rules very much. It simplifies a little, but only a little.

I've gotta get ready for a soccer game.

And it's a very minor simplification, since even now it's two lengths for penalty drops and one for relief without penalty.  If that's too hard to grasp then we are wasting our time with this in the first place.  I also still like adhering to the principle behind the one or two club measurement.  It's closer to being in keeping with the playing the course as you find it and playing the ball as it lies.

I guess that Erik is right that I'm a little more stringent though.  I prefer the drop because it is more true to the random lie you get when playing a stroke.  Placing the ball within a one or two clublength area allows too much freedom to improve one's lie, which once again breaches one of the most basic principles of the game.

[wadesworld]

And it's a very minor simplification, since even now it's two lengths for penalty drops and one for relief without penalty.  If that's too hard to grasp then we are wasting our time with this in the first place.  I also still like adhering to the principle behind the one or two club measurement.  It's closer to being in keeping with the playing the course as you find it and playing the ball as it lies.

I guess that Erik is right that I'm a little more stringent though.  I prefer the drop because it is more true to the random lie you get when playing a stroke.  Placing the ball within a one or two clublength area allows too much freedom to improve one's lie, which once again breaches one of the most basic principles of the game.

Oh, I totally understand it and that's why you won't see me complaining if it stays the same.  I was just listing potential simplifications which I could see enough benefit through saved time or elimination of a lot clauses (i.e. re-drops).

[disco111]

It has nothing to do with changing a position, it has to do with someone meeting the challenge successfully.

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.

Consider it, @disco111: You hit a ball into a field. The field can contain rocks, sand, a stand bag (yours, your opponent's, someone else's?), a tractor, a bathroom, a rain shelter, a dog, rough, water, sand, trees, bushes, someone's house, a pear, a half-eaten pear, a snake, an anthill, etc. You could be standing on or in many of those conditions, or your ball could be, or they could affect your stance or swing. Or you might lose your ball, or someone else might step on it, it may be embedded in something, it may fly into something, or bounce off something, it may move after you address it, you might whiff, you might double-hit it, you might hit it off someone, your opponent, or a gallery member, or the dog, snake, ant-hill, etc.

And that's just one shot. Never mind what you do if you play that shot out of turn, from the wrong teeing ground, with the wrong ball, with an illegal stroke… and on and on and on and on and on.

I would gladly offer you $500, and I think we could get you a LOT more, if you could devise a simplified Rules of Golf that didn't compromise the Principles.

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...............

[disco111]

I get the impression that you're just arguing that the rules you use most often are the ones you'd like to consider the concise rules, and when you'll come up against a situation that was covered by the other rules you cut out, your reaction will be "screw it" and make it up as you go along. All we're saying is that the rules as they currently exist, with arguably a little possible tinkering around the edges, are as concise as they can be to not leave any gaps in their ability to cover all possible situations you might come across. You can argue specific rules should be different, but the totality of such efforts won't result in any sort of significant reduction in the complexity or size of the rule book.

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.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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:

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14322:

As provided in Rule 33-8a , the Committee may make and publish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy established in this Appendix. In addition, detailed information regarding acceptable and prohibited Local Rules is provided in "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" under Rule 33-8 and in "How to Conduct a Competition."

If local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game and the Committee considers it necessary to modify a Rule of Golf, authorization from the USGA must be obtained.

Go look at Appendix I.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

I realize that sounds somewhat contradictory to my assessment of the rules in general, but it's strikes at the heart of the discussion.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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'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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

I'm not arguing, I'm attempting to present a position

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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.

Quote:

23-1/3

Assistance in Removing Large Loose Impediment

Q. May spectators, caddies, fellow-competitors, etc. assist a player in removing a large loose impediment?

A. Yes.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

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.

[Phil McGleno]

@disco111 did you know that baseball just recently added a new rule to the rule book to deal with SWITCH PITCHERS?

[mvmac]

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.

The world isn't black and white and the game of golf is no different.

[natureboy]

Maybe we should go back to the original 13 rules, legendarily set down in 1744:

Articles & Laws in Playing at Golf.

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

2. Your Tee must be upon the Ground.

3. You are not to change the Ball which you Strike off the Tee.

4. You are not to remove Stones, Bones or any Break Club, for the sake of playing your Ball, Except upon the fair Green and that only / within a Club's length of your Ball.

5. If your Ball comes among watter, or any wattery filth, you are at liberty to take out your Ball & bringing it behind the hazard and Teeing it, you may play it with any Club and allow your Adversary a Stroke for so getting out your Ball.

6. If your Balls be found any where touching one another, You are to lift the first Ball, till you play the last.

7. At Holling, you are to play your Ball honestly for the Hole, and not to play upon your Adversary's Ball, not lying in your way to the Hole.

8. If you should lose your Ball, by it's being taken up, or any other way, you are to go back to the Spot, where you struck last, & drop another Ball, And allow your adversary a Stroke for the misfortune.

9. No man at Holling his Ball, is to be allowed, to mark his way to the Hole with his Club, or anything else.

10. If a Ball be stopp'd by any Person, Horse, Dog or anything else, The Ball so stop'd must be play'd where it lyes.

11. If you draw your Club in Order to Strike, & proceed so far in the Stroke as to be e Accounted a Stroke.

12. He whose Ball lyes farthest from the Hole is obliged to play first.

13. Neither Trench, Ditch or Dyke, made for the preservation of the Links, nor the Scholar's Holes, or the Soldier's Lines, Shall be accounted a Hazard; But the Ball is to be taken out teed /and play'd with any Iron Club.

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