Are there too many rules in golf?

[Vinsk]

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

It's not condescending. You have been factually wrong and it was pointed out. Your "50 years in golf" doesn't exempt you from learning. Iacas is golf professional who's passion is teaching. And quite frankly YOU alone felt he was condescending and above us. He is a superior golfer to me and knows the rules better than I do. Doesn't hurt to say that at all. He's a hell of a reference if you'll just humble yourself a bit and not rely on your 50 years alone.

[natureboy]

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.)

I know. Some of those were part of the simplified info that I found online...except the videos they were good, but holy you can't bend any leaf or branch in the process of taking your stance? The implication of that video (as worded) that I took away is that basically you can't touch anything growing with any part of your body (standing on grass seemingly included). I assume that the video copy was just poorly worded or poorly juxtaposed with the actions of the model golfer.

[edit] Situation was clarified (a bit) in part 2. Still implication for the depicted situation in 'Play the Course as You Find It' was that rules require me to straddle the leafy branch, yes? Who is the arbiter of the minimum amount of necessary bending to play the ball, when I could take a left handed swing and not bend it at all. I assume the rules don't require a left-handed swing even though it is an option. This seems like a fairly big gray area rule.

I don't see why a really terse summary tool like this couldn't be a preface / 'header' to the actual rules in the official rulebook. After all none of those other summary things is sent in the mail as part of a USGA membership. I don't think the quick guide in the official rules book has quite the simplicity that is IMO desirable for the completely novice golfer.

[Missouri Swede]

...but holy  you can't bend any leaf or branch in the process of taking your stance? The implication of that video (as worded) that I took away is that basically you can't touch anything growing with any part of your body (standing on grass seemingly included). I assume that the video copy was just poorly worded or poorly juxtaposed with the actions of the model golfer.

The wording is right from the ROG.  This rule also says that the player incurs no penalty in fairly taking his stance. Examples are given in the decisions as to what the least intrusive way of doing this would be (and examples of not fairly).  (But note: you learned something! And I had to check on it, so I did as well.)

I don't see why a really terse summary tool like this couldn't be a preface / 'header' to the actual rules in the official rulebook. After all none of those other summary things is sent in the mail as part of a USGA membership. I don't think the quick guide in the official rules book has quite the simplicity that is IMO desirable for the completely novice golfer.

The ''Quick Guide" pamphlet is the same as the quick guide section of the ROG book, so members do get that part as of their membership.  (Not sure how many novice golfers join the USGA right away, though.  I didn't join for several years.)  I don't think seven pages is really too long.  But for a complete beginner, I might aim someone at the online videos.

[natureboy]

The wording is right from the ROG.  This rule also says that the player incurs no penalty in fairly taking his stance. Examples are given in the decisions as to what the least intrusive way of doing this would be (and examples of not fairly).  (But note: you learned something! And I had to check on it, so I did as well.)

The ''Quick Guide" pamphlet is the same as the quick guide section of the ROG book, so members do get that part as of their membership.  (Not sure how many novice golfers join the USGA right away, though.  I didn't join for several years.)  I don't think seven pages is really too long.  But for a complete beginner, I might aim someone at the online videos.

I found the video coverage of the move/bend/break topic a bit hazy as the clarification mentioned minimal movement as permissible, but don't think included the word 'reasonable', which I think is important as a sense of where the boundary for 'minimal' lies (more permissive than draconian).

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Missouri Swede

The wording is right from the ROG.  This rule also says that the player incurs no penalty in fairly taking his stance. Examples are given in the decisions as to what the least intrusive way of doing this would be (and examples of not fairly).  (But note: you learned something! And I had to check on it, so I did as well.)

The ''Quick Guide" pamphlet is the same as the quick guide section of the ROG book, so members do get that part as of their membership.  (Not sure how many novice golfers join the USGA right away, though.  I didn't join for several years.)  I don't think seven pages is really too long.  But for a complete beginner, I might aim someone at the online videos.

I found the video coverage of the move/bend/break topic a bit hazy as the clarification mentioned minimal movement as permissible, but don't think included the word 'reasonable', which I think is important as a sense of where the boundary for 'minimal' lies (more permissive than draconian).

Have you read the Decision which makes it very clear what is and is not allowed when "fairly taking" ones stance?  Here it is.  If this is somehow unclear to you then there is no answer that will make any difference.

13-2/1

Explanation of "Fairly Taking His Stance"

Q.Rule 13-2 states that a player must not improve the position or lie of his ball, the area of his intended stance or swing or his line of play or a reasonable extension of that line beyond the hole by moving, bending or breaking anything growing or fixed (including immovable obstructions and objects defining out of bounds). An exception permits a player to do so in "fairly taking his stance." What is the significance of "fairly"?

A.Without "fairly," the exception would permit improvement of position or lie, area of intended stance or swing or line of play by anything that could be said to be taking a stance. The use of "fairly" is intended to limit the player to what is reasonably necessary to take a stance for the selected stroke without unduly improving the position of the ball, his lie, area of intended stance or swing or line of play. Thus, in taking his stance for the selected stroke, the player should select the least intrusive course of action which results in the minimum improvement in the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play. The player is not entitled to a normal stance or swing. He must accommodate the situation in which the ball is found and take a stance as normal as the circumstances permit. What is fair must be determined in the light of all the circumstances.

Examples of actions which do constitute fairly taking a stance are:

backing into a branch or young sapling if that is the only way to take a stance for the selected stroke, even if this causes the branch to move out of the way or the sapling to bend or break.

bending a branch of a tree with the hands in order to get under the tree to play a ball.

Examples of actions which do not constitute fairly taking a stance are:

deliberately moving, bending or breaking branches with the hands, a leg or the body to get them out of the way of the backswing or stroke.

standing on a branch to prevent it interfering with the backswing or stroke.

hooking one branch on another or braiding two weeds for the same purpose.

bending with a hand a branch obscuring the ball after the stance has been taken.

bending an interfering branch with the hands, a leg or the body in taking a stance when the stance could have been taken without bending the branch.

[natureboy]

Have you read the Decision which makes it very clear what is and is not allowed when "fairly taking" ones stance?  Here it is.  If this is somehow unclear to you then there is no answer that will make any difference.

First off that comes off very condescending.

Second, the need for the lengthy decision & explanation to clarify what is IMO some basic info about the rule may highlight that language in the core rule could be improved.

Personally, I had already understood and internalized the correct interpretation of the rule for reasonably fairly taking a stance. However, the way the videos. "ideal for beginners". covered that topic had me initially doubting my correct original interpretation. Watch them with an open mind and see what you think. Could just be me. Leaving the caveat / exception for the rule to the second video wasn't helpful.

[Vinsk]

First off that comes off very condescending. Second, the need for the lengthy decision & explanation to clarify what is IMO some basic info about the rule may highlight that language in the core rule could be improved. Personally, I had already understood and internalized the correct interpretation of the rule for reasonably fairly taking a stance. However, the way the videos. "ideal for beginners". covered that topic had me initially doubting my correct original interpretation. Watch them with an open mind and see what you think. Could just be me. Leaving the caveat / exception for the rule to the second video wasn't helpful.

Apparently some "descending" is necessary to discuss this with you.

[Phil McGleno]

First off that comes off very condescending.

Only if you are looking to be condescended. I thought he explained it clearly when you could have just GOOGLED it and gotten an answer.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Have you read the Decision which makes it very clear what is and is not allowed when "fairly taking" ones stance?  Here it is.  If this is somehow unclear to you then there is no answer that will make any difference.

First off that comes off very condescending.

Second, the need for the lengthy decision & explanation to clarify what is IMO some basic info about the rule may highlight that language in the core rule could be improved.

Personally, I had already understood and internalized the correct interpretation of the rule for reasonably fairly taking a stance. However, the way the videos. "ideal for beginners". covered that topic had me initially doubting my correct original interpretation. Watch them with an open mind and see what you think. Could just be me. Leaving the caveat / exception for the rule to the second video wasn't helpful.

The key point that I find very clear and concise is the sentence: " the player should select the least intrusive course of action which results in the minimum improvement in the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play ."  The least intrusive course, means that if you have to stand partly in a bush or tree or even a patch of weeds, you examine the area where you need to stand and select the least intrusive path to that stance.  Whether deliberate or accidental, breaking or bending something out of the way unnecessarily is a penalty.

[turtleback]

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

No one said that you know nothing, but it is hard to ignore the ignorance of (some of the) rules you have displayed in this thread.

The really funny thing is the part I have italicized.  Here you are criticizing @iacas because in passing he pointed out that misstatement, yet you ignore the real issue, which is that virtually everything you said about the boulder incident and its aftermath was wrong.

He didn't say you were completely wrong because you were wrong about the construction crew.  He said that as one of the many many things that were wrong with with you said.  It wasn't a construction crew, but more importantly TPTB didn't think there was anything wrong with what Tiger did, they confirmed the rules official's ruling, and nothing was done to change the rule or the decision other than to make it even clearer that what happened was perfectly fine within the rules.

That is the real problem with what you said -  I read the construction crew thing as just a little tweak on you trying to buttress your case with hyperbolic BS.   So the real "lame rebuttal card" is your complaint about the construction crew comment while ignoring the complete dismemberment of your "understanding:" of what happened in the boulder incident.

But I am just being a mean disciple, I guess.

I don't see why a really terse summary tool like this couldn't be a preface / 'header' to the actual rules in the official rulebook. After all none of those other summary things is sent in the mail as part of a USGA membership. I don't think the quick guide in the official rules book has quite the simplicity that is IMO desirable for the completely novice golfer.

How would that help when 90%+ of golfers (approaching 100% in the case of novice golfers) aren't even members of the USGA?  Whereas I would venture to guess that 99%+ of golfer, novice or otherwise, have access to the internet and could find these online resources quite easily.  If they cared.  Which most, sadly, do not.  I do not think lack of availability of easy access to the ROG through summaries, etc. are the problem.

[wadesworld]

First off that comes off very condescending.

Second, the need for the lengthy decision & explanation to clarify what is IMO some basic info about the rule may highlight that language in the core rule could be improved.

Personally, I had already understood and internalized the correct interpretation of the rule for reasonably fairly taking a stance. However, the way the videos. "ideal for beginners". covered that topic had me initially doubting my correct original interpretation. Watch them with an open mind and see what you think. Could just be me. Leaving the caveat / exception for the rule to the second video wasn't helpful.

Unless you're going to change the rule to "do whatever you want," how would you propose simplifying the key concept of "fairly take your stance in the least intrusive way possible?"

[natureboy]

Only if you are looking to be condescended.

I thought he explained it clearly when you could have just GOOGLED it and gotten an answer.

I wasn't looking for an answer. I already understood it. I was critiquing the particular structure of the USGA video 'Play The Course As You Find It' for it's placing one part of the rule 'no bending or breaking' in a different section from the 'fairly take your stance' exception. They do include the jist of the decision cited, I think it would be clearer to discuss that rule as a whole more like in the rulebook, but I understand they were trying to have a hierarchy of principles. Just think it's potentially confusing. Maybe only to me.

The key point that I find very clear and concise is the sentence: "the player should select the least intrusive course of action which results in the minimum improvement in the position or lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing or line of play."  The least intrusive course, means that if you have to stand partly in a bush or tree or even a patch of weeds, you examine the area where you need to stand and select the least intrusive path to that stance.  Whether deliberate or accidental, breaking or bending something out of the way unnecessarily is a penalty.

It is very clear. It's also in a decision / wording clarification that is not in the USGA issued rulebook itself. I personally already understood the minimal / reasonable aspects of 'fairly taking a stance'. As far as the USGA video it is clear if you view the two parts together specifically looking at that 'bending' circumstance depicted. By itself, I found the 'no bending or breaking' might leave a viewer with a sense of a droconian 'no touchie the growing things' because it was separated from the 'fairly taking a stance' explanation. In the rulebook the 'fairly taking a stance' caveat / exception follows right after 'no bending or breaking'. I think the video would have been clearer if they had just stated in that part that the particular action was a violation because the player had an alternative to take his stance in a way that would minimize the bending and not give himself a real or potential advantage in moving the limb out of his swing path and underscore the principle behind the rule in the process.

How would that help when 90%+ of golfers (approaching 100% in the case of novice golfers) aren't even members of the USGA?  Whereas I would venture to guess that 99%+ of golfer, novice or otherwise, have access to the internet and could find these online resources quite easily.  If they cared.  Which most, sadly, do not.  I do not think lack of availability of easy access to the ROG through summaries, etc. are the problem.

Might not. IMO a little more descending hierarchy of complexity could be helpful. If I was introduced to the game by the typical golfer, I would probably be taking drops on lost balls. I did fortunately consult the internet first.

Unless you're going to change the rule to "do whatever you want," how would you propose simplifying the key concept of "fairly take your stance in the least intrusive way possible?"

I'm fine with the rules, I'm not critiquing them per-se, but the way they were arranged in the video link below. Also, the USGA issued rulebook doesn't use that specific language. I would consider your wording in quotes a rulebook clarity enhancement. The video I was puzzled by was emphasizing the no-no's first then in a separate video it went over the exceptions. I think a more helpful arrangement would have been to summarize the principle of play the course as you find it & play the ball as it lies along with the principle of penalizing actions that in fact or potentially give an advantage relative to those core principles and then address that there are some 'reasonable' exceptions...then go into the specific rules involved and their attendant exceptions.

http://usga-rules.com/PlayingTheBall/

[ColinL]

What a tedious argument is going on here!   I'll stick to the matter of applying the rules as to how you get to your ball in trees/ bushes etc, how you take your stance and what you are alllowed do and not allowed to do.  Perhaps instead of seeking a simplification of or rewriting of the rules, you might consider that any problem lies not in the wording of the rule, but in the huge variety of situations your ball might be in.  The words have to be applicable to all of those situations worldwide and much inevitably lies in the careful particularisation of them in a given situation.  The whole business of getting into the trees or the bushes legitimately is difficult because it's difficult rather than because of the wording.

It's helpful to be aware in your own game of how you go about diving into the undergrowth and to watch those you play with socially  (not so as to pounce on them but just to test your own understanding).  Being careful to do it properly yourself can be helpful in identifying the sort of things you can and cannot do.  For example, do I back into that branch and bend it so as to get at my ball with the convenient effect of its now being out of the way for my shot when I could actually walk round to the other side of it and get to my ball without moving it (which is exactly the situation I was in on Friday past!).  Or being aware that you can't step on that low branch to hold it down but have to put your feet on either side of it and leave it where it was.  And so on.  Possibly the key words are that you are not entitled to a swing and if something is in the way, that's tough.

But to repeat, it's difficult because it is complicated and it's complicated because we play the game in natural surroundings.

[imsys0042]

Interesting thread to say the least. One point worth mentioning is that since I started keeping a handicap that playing exactly by the rules has become more important to me. You are cheating yourself by having a lower index by not playing by them since you are benefiting presumably. That said, I look down on no one who is just having fun or agreeing with playing partners how they are going to play. Just remember that by doing that, you are playing a modified game. Btw, I voted no. Not too many rules, but most people can get by with the basic situations. For the more esoteric rules, carry a rule book with you or phone the golf shop. You also have the option to play something both ways and then consult later.

[natureboy]

Possibly the key words are that you are not entitled to a swing and if something is in the way, that's tough.

Nice. I would tweak for even more clarity 'you are not entitled to an unobstructed swing'.

[David in FL]

Nice. I would tweak for even more clarity 'you are not entitled to an unobstructed swing'.

I know it's a little picky, but you really aren't entitled to any swing at all, obstructed or not. Damn game!

[natureboy]

I know it's a little picky, but you really aren't entitled to any swing at all, obstructed or not.

Damn game!

I think it's implied on open ground. Otherwise win-at-all cost opponents would start crowding people's swings in which case you might have to deem them an obstruction and remove them bodily. Since it's a 'gentleman's game' and not wrestling it was probably felt that this didn't need to be explicitly covered in the rules - only the etiquette section.

[ColinL]

I think it's implied on open ground

That's about as inventive as you can get.  On what basis (i.e. in the words) can you infer that?