Does the USGA Rules book make sense?

[Covert]

I am new to golf, and I'm sure this topic has been addressed. But a quick search here didn't find anything. I was an undergraduate English major, and I have an MBA, but I can't make sense out of a lot of the "Rules of Golf" wording. Am I getting cognitively impaired in my old age, or is the book very poorly written? And if the latter, why doesn't anybody clean it up after all these years with thousands, if not millions, of golfers depending on it?

[dkolo]

14 minutes ago, Covert said:

I am new to golf, and I'm sure this topic has been addressed. But a quick search here didn't find anything. I was an undergraduate English major, and I have an MBA, but I can't make sense out of a lot of the "Rules of Golf" wording. Am I getting cognitively impaired in my old age, or is the book very poorly written? And if the latter, why doesn't anybody clean it up after all these years with thousands, if not millions, of golfers depending on it?

What are you talking about specifically and how would you propose to make it better while not sacrificing any existing meaning and nuance?

[iacas]

I would vote "yes" if there was a poll.

[Martyn W]

15 minutes ago, Covert said:

I am new to golf, and I'm sure this topic has been addressed. But a quick search here didn't find anything. I was an undergraduate English major, and I have an MBA, but I can't make sense out of a lot of the "Rules of Golf" wording. Am I getting cognitively impaired in my old age, or is the book very poorly written? And if the latter, why doesn't anybody clean it up after all these years with thousands, if not millions, of golfers depending on it?

Think of the Rules book as being written in a different language; the everyday meaning of words is not always what it seems ( obstruction and hazard, for example). When learning a new language, one thing you must do is build a vocabulary. My advice to you is do not even attempt to read the Rules before you thoroughly learn and understand the definitions.

Reading Richard Tuft's 'The Principles behind the Rules of Golf' is also essential reading if you intend to be a true student of the Rules.

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I would vote "yes" if there was a poll.

Yes to what? That the book is poorly written? 

You often refer to Tuft's; you are surely familiar with this quote:

"The Rules of Golf are indeed a beautifully balanced code, rich with logic, drama and the traditions of a great sport".

[Club Rat]

I agree with @iacas  and would like to see many of the rules explained in a simple, effective manner which are right or wrong examples.

The simpler, the better!

[Fourputt]

In most cases, trying change the wording into "common English", whatever that is, would create imprecision in the meanings that the rules are intended to convey.  Most such changes would require the rule thus modified to become far more wordy in attempting to say the same thing, making the task of locating specific items even more difficult than it already is for those uninitiated in the arrangement of the document. 

The rules are written in more of a legal form, but one that is actually not that hard to understand.  The Rules of Golf are certainly quite simple when compared to something like signing up for Medicare and Medicare supplemental insurance.  That is stuff that needs to be translated from whatever twisted logic was used to write it.  Trying to wade through tax forms is another chore that is beyond reasonable.  

The Rules of Golf are written with a strong leaning toward logic.  It only takes a basic understanding of a few of the fundamental principles which provide the basis for the way golf is supposed to be played, to see their wonderful efficiency in defining the processes needed to play the game.

[dkolo]

34 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

Think of the Rules book as being written in a different language; the everyday meaning of words is not always what it seems ( obstruction and hazard, for example). When learning a new language, one thing you must do is build a vocabulary. My advice to you is do not even attempt to read the Rules before you thoroughly learn and understand the definitions.

Reading Richard Tuft's 'The Principles behind the Rules of Golf' is also essential reading if you intend to be a true student of the Rules.

Yes to what? That the book is poorly written? 

You often refer to Tuft's; you are surely familiar with this quote:

"The Rules of Golf are indeed a beautifully balanced code, rich with logic, drama and the traditions of a great sport".

I think he meant that yes, the Rules make sense, in response to the title of the thread. 

[ColinL]

21 minutes ago, Club Rat said:

I agree with @iacas  and would like to see many of the rules explained in a simple, effective manner which are right or wrong examples.

The simpler, the better!

Explaining a rule in a simple effective manner generally requires many more words than the rule itself. There are plenty of explanatory books on the market, the best being  the R&A and USGA  versions of  Golf Rules Illustrated.   Make sure you look at the 2016 edition for the rules as they will be from January.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

Yes to what? That the book is poorly written? 

Uhm…

28 minutes ago, dkolo said:

I think he meant that yes, the Rules make sense, in response to the title of the thread. 

Nailed it.

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, Covert said:

I am new to golf, and I'm sure this topic has been addressed. But a quick search here didn't find anything. I was an undergraduate English major, and I have an MBA, but I can't make sense out of a lot of the "Rules of Golf" wording. Am I getting cognitively impaired in my old age, or is the book very poorly written? And if the latter, why doesn't anybody clean it up after all these years with thousands, if not millions, of golfers depending on it?

It is poorly written if it is judged by the criteria of a novel or a good history book.  But as a set of rules for a complicated game it is written in exactly the same way the best rulebooks for complicated sports are written.  It is a piece of cake in its entirety, as compared to the single rule in pro football on what is a catch.

I don't think they are poorly written and I doubt the issue is cognitive impairment on your part.  I think it is an imbalance of expectation of how rules are written.

Is there a sport that you play that has rules that are simpler, relative to the intrinsic complexity of the respective games?

[Covert]

1 hour ago, dkolo said:

What are you talking about specifically and how would you propose to make it better while not sacrificing any existing meaning and nuance?

For example, the passage that prompted my question today, under Equipment: "If the cart is being moved by on of the players (or the partner of one of the players) sharing it, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be that player's equipment. Otherwise, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of the player sharing the cart whose ball (or whose partner's ball) is involved. "

If this is perfectly clear to almost everybody here, then I admit I am slipping. I can just ask somebody to explain what is confusing to me.

 

[Fourputt]

I can't see how it could be more simple.  It's your equipment (including your opponent's bag - that's is what is meant by "everything in it") if you or your partner or your caddies are moving it.  If your opponent, fellow competitor or his partner or their caddies are moving it then everything on it is their equipment, including your bag.  If it is not moving, then everything in it is the equipment of the player who made the stroke.  

It's really only a consideration if a ball in motion hits the cart because that is when the rules involving a cart come into play.  Otherwise, it doesn't matter whose cart it is if you aren't involved in a rules situation.

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Covert said:

For example, the passage that prompted my question today, under Equipment: "If the cart is being moved by on of the players (or the partner of one of the players) sharing it, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be that player's equipment. Otherwise, the cart and everything in it are deemed to be the equipment of the player sharing the cart whose ball (or whose partner's ball) is involved. "

If this is perfectly clear to almost everybody here, then I admit I am slipping. I can just ask somebody to explain what is confusing to me.

It makes sense to me, yes.

• If the cart is being moved, it's the equipment of the guy moving it.
• If it's stationary, it's the equipment of the guy who hit the ball.

[Covert]

10 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I can't see how it could be more simple.  It's your equipment (including your opponent's bag - that's is what is meant by "everything in it") if you or your partner or your caddies are moving it.  If your opponent, fellow competitor or his partner or their caddies are moving it then everything on it is their equipment, including your bag.  If it is not moving, then everything in it is the equipment of the player who made the stroke.  

It's really only a consideration if a ball in motion hits the cart because that is when the rules involving a cart come into play.  Otherwise, it doesn't matter whose cart it is if you aren't involved in a rules situation.

Okay, thanks. It's ironic that a few books have been published and presumably sold with the premise of making the rule book simpler. I won't say anything more about it here.

[Baog]

5 minutes ago, Covert said:

Okay, thanks. It's ironic that a few books have been published and presumably sold with the premise of making the rule book simpler. I won't say anything more about it here.

I agree. I believe the folks that are insisting that the rule book is not hard to understand are forgetting that they have years of experience reading and interpreting the rulebook. I agree that the rulebook is just about as unambiguous as it can be but that is not the same thing as being simple or easy to understand.

If we were starting from scratch, many of the rules could be made easier to read without making them less precise. However, there are decades of rulings and decisions based on the old language, so it makes good sense not to undertake a wholesale revision of the wording. This is a common issue with statutory interpretation in the legal world too.

[rkim291968]

34 minutes ago, iacas said:

It makes sense to me, yes.

• If the cart is being moved, it's the equipment of the guy moving it.
• If it's stationary, it's the equipment of the guy who hit the ball.

Much better wording.   I understand this clearly with one reading.   The other text that @Covert quoted, not so much but English is my 2nd language and have I have been slipping on top of that. 

10 minutes ago, Baog said:

I agree. I believe the folks that are insisting that the rule book is not hard to understand are forgetting that they have years of experience reading and interpreting the rulebook. I agree that the rulebook is just about as unambiguous as it can be but that is not the same thing as being simple or easy to understand.

If we were starting from scratch, many of the rules could be made easier to read without making them less precise. However, there are decades of rulings and decisions based on the old language, so it makes good sense not to undertake a wholesale revision of the wording. This is a common issue with statutory interpretation in the legal world too.

+1.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Baog said:

If we were starting from scratch, many of the rules could be made easier to read without making them less precise.

I don't know if that's true.

Please feel free to try.

And FWIW, I disagree that my "simplified" version of the above is equivalent in terms of coverage, etc. Plus it's sexist ("guy").

[bubble]

I find it full of sense. It lacks illustration for the majority of "visual" people.

The definitions are to be read first indeed.

Maybe read a condensed rules guide first as well.

The decisions give good examples to understand the rules as well. I always consult an online PDF of decisions, the rule is the first text anyway.

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by bubble