Does the USGA Rules book make sense?

[Rulesman]

Anyone who keeps it down the middle will rarely encounter rules questions. Those who venture off the beaten track may encounter more than wild animals and spooks.

[RandallT]

5 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Anyone who keeps it down the middle will rarely encounter rules questions. Those who venture off the beaten track may encounter more than wild animals and spooks.

Exactly. I read the rules like I practice my short game. I don't. 

The remedy to both is to hit fairways and greens. Then both are moot! 

Spoiler

(joking of course- I do plan to compete at some point, and I'll brush up on both!)

 

[ev780]

21 hours ago, Fourputt said:

It only gets weird when you don't know the basic rules and procedures that you experience every day on the course.  It's when you breach a rule through ignorance and then have to try and fix it that the rules applications become complicated.  The amount of confusion created is directly related to the amount of ignorance displayed.

Thanks.  Guess I am an idiot.

 

What did I ever do to you?

[turtleback]

On 11/25/2015, 6:30:43, David in FL said:

Yes, the rule book makes sense.

But only to people who actually read it. 

 

3 minutes ago, ev780 said:

Thanks.  Guess I am an idiot.

 

What did I ever do to you?

 

Wow, overreact much?  He was using a generic you, not  a personal you.  And he is describing exactly how most of the difficult rules questions arise.  They start with someone doing something horribly wrong.  Like, for example, Tigers ill-fated drop at the Master a few year back.  Look how many people had a problem parsing that situation through the rules and precedents.  A ton of questions got raised, but it all started with a horrible rules violation.  Of a pretty basic rule.

That 73% you got at the rules seminar?  How many of your wrong answers involved a situation that you had ever encountered on the course?  I'd bet not many, if any at all.  If you are anything like me, it is the ones where there are 2 or 3 or more rules involved, interacting in ways that are not immediately apparent.  That 73% you got means that you know 99.9% of the rules you need to know to play golf by the rules.  And it means that you know the rules a lot better than most golfers.

 

[Rulesman]

23 hours ago, ev780 said:

So we are supposed to know the rules and call penalties on ourselves but the are so many layers to them that it is very difficult to get a complete understanding of them.  I don't necessarily have a solution, just an observation that they are way more complicated than they appear on the surface.

The aren't that many rules but the 'layers' (ie Decisions) reflect the (very) many complicated situations that may possibly be encountered on the complicated playing field.

Just think about how complicated a tennis court is.

But I would say 73% is a very commendable 1st time score.

[ev780]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

But only to people who actually read it. 

 

 

Wow, overreact much?  He was using a generic you, not  a personal you.  And he is describing exactly how most of the difficult rules questions arise.  They start with someone doing something horribly wrong.  Like, for example, Tigers ill-fated drop at the Master a few year back.  Look how many people had a problem parsing that situation through the rules and precedents.  A ton of questions got raised, but it all started with a horrible rules violation.  Of a pretty basic rule.

That 73% you got at the rules seminar?  How many of your wrong answers involved a situation that you had ever encountered on the course?  I'd bet not many, if any at all.  If you are anything like me, it is the ones where there are 2 or 3 or more rules involved, interacting in ways that are not immediately apparent.  That 73% you got means that you know 99.9% of the rules you need to know to play golf by the rules.  And it means that you know the rules a lot better than most golfers.

 

 

Well when he/she quotes MY post and says YOU, yeah I have to infer.

I did acknowledge the 95-99% curve several have mentioned. Day to day it is pretty straightforward when you hit fairways, greens or an occasional hazard. But as you said, when multiple rules start interacting with the decisions it gets weird.  Exactly what I said earlier.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, ev780 said:

Thanks.  Guess I am an idiot.

 

What did I ever do to you?

Huh???  What did I say that you would take that from it?  I didn't call anyone names, and I certainly didn't call you an idiot.  I simply said that ignorance (which simply means lack of knowledge - a genius can be ignorant of something he hasn't taken the time to learn) of the rules is the primary causation for complexity and confusion in resolving  many of the questions raised in the USGA tests.

[ev780]

22 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The aren't that many rules but the 'layers' (ie Decisions) reflect the (very) many complicated situations that may possibly be encountered on the complicated playing field.

Just think about how complicated a tennis court is.

But I would say 73% is a very commendable 1st time score.

Better stated for sure.  Kind of what I meant.

I have heard that I did OK at 73% but not up to my usual test taking standard I guess.  But at $350 a pop I am not likely to repeat the rules seminar unless someone else pays the bill.  As an amateur that wanted to understand the rules better I can't see spending any more money on my quest for knowledge.

 

5 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Huh???  What did I say that you would take that from it?  I didn't call anyone names, and I certainly didn't call you an idiot.  I simply said that ignorance (which simply means lack of knowledge - a genius can be ignorant of something he hasn't taken the time to learn) of the rules is the primary causation for complexity and confusion in resolving  many of the questions raised in the USGA tests.

Guess I took it wrong.  My Apologies. But when you use my quote then use the term YOU I take it to mean me who was ignorant and didn't know the rules.

No Intent then no injury.  Case closed.

[Fourputt]

1 minute ago, ev780 said:

Better stated for sure.  Kind of what I meant.

I have heard that I did OK at 73% but not up to my usual test taking standard I guess.  But at $350 a pop I am not likely to repeat the rules seminar unless someone else pays the bill.  As an amateur that wanted to understand the rules better I can't see spending any more money on my quest for knowledge.

Incidentally, I've taken the workshop and the 100 question exam twice.  I scored 80% the first time and 85% the second.  I had been involved with the rules in steadily increasing depth for more than 15 years before my first workshop, and I thought I was pretty solid on them, but that 80% after 3 days of study told me that I still had a long way to go.  I still do, even though I started studying the rules in 1987.  

However, I no longer run into any situations on course that I can't deal with through my knowledge of the proper procedures.  The only real issues that can stump me are those as mentioned above, where the player does not follow the prescribed procedure and must try to correct his error.  

Since I no longer play in competitions or referee for tournaments, I don't really have to worry about that.  Now I use my knowledge of the rules to manage my own game and only interact with others on a rules basis when they ask for assistance.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, ev780 said:

Well when he/she quotes MY post and says YOU, yeah I have to infer.

You could just give the benefit of the doubt, and choose not to be offended when it's possible or even probable he was using the generic "you."

On Rules issues, @Fourputt is direct, and will tell you if he thinks you're being an idiot.

[Fourputt]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

You could just give the benefit of the doubt, and choose not to be offended when it's possible or even probable he was using the generic "you."

On Rules issues, @Fourputt is direct, and will tell you if he thinks you're being an idiot.

LOL   

I really try to avoid such references directed at individuals because that never ends well.  I have used that term in the past when aimed collectively and generically at a larger group, and only when they have earned the appellation.

[ev780]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

LOL   

I really try to avoid such references directed at individuals because that never ends well.  I have used that term in the past when aimed collectively and generically at a larger group, and only when they have earned the appellation.

I get it. Happens.

[natureboy]

On 11/25/2015, 1:26:00, 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.

This is a good insight / point. I would agree that they read clearly and are internally consistent so they do make sense to me. Are they a bit dense or intimidating in their language? I think so.

I thought one way to deal with this is to tweak the wording of the basic principles and the 20% of rules that are encountered 80% of the time so these initial levels of description may be a bit clearer and more of the 'rabbit hole' of complexity is alluded to, but slightly more partitioned. I know there is an intro section and many basic intro sheets out there. I just think that some of that more simple description can be applied to the basic 'surface' parts for everyday play even if it may add a touch to the length of the total comprehensive set. The really knowledgeable rules folks could even adopt an 'insider' shorthand referring to a rules question as a tier I, II, III rules scenario.

I took one stab at casting some of the principles around what a player is permitted to do to play the game. The basic exceptions to these would be the next layer, procedures for free relief and relief under penalty would follow, then the penalties for breaking rules in the various types of play, definitions and special cases / rulings would be appendices. It is unlikely to happen because it would change what people are familiar with (and could create some unforseen headaches), but I do think the official rulebook could be tweaked someday to make it more accessible / readable even if it doesn't change how complex they have to be to deal with all the potential situations encountered under competition.

Here's my stab at the top level using more 'affirmative' language:

• The game of golf consists of a player moving a ball at rest from the teeing ground into the hole by striking at the ball using a club with as few strokes as possible in accordance with the rules.
• A player is permitted 14 conforming clubs (see appendix). A player is permitted a single conforming ball (see appendix) in play and unlimited conforming spare balls.
• A player is permitted to take fairly take a firmly footed stance (without building one), to ground their club lightly behind the ball (no more than the weight of the club resting on the grass or ground), and to fairly strike at the ball with the head of the club (without pushing, scraping, or spooning).
• A player, fellow competitor, marker, opponent, or caddie must not take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole unless permitted under the rules.
• To avoid gaining a potential advantage or conferring a potential disadvantage in the course of play a player generally must play the ball at rest, as it lies, and the course as they find it.
• A player is generally permitted to move, bend, or break growing vegetation and disturb the surface of the course only to the minimum extent needed to fairly take a stance, and/or as part of a fairly made stroke (including the backswing if the stroke is taken), and to search for and identify their ball. 

Edited December 7, 2015 by natureboy

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

This is a good insight / point. I would agree that they read clearly and are internally consistent so they do make sense to me. Are they a bit dense or intimidating in their language? I think so.

I thought one way to deal with this is to tweak the wording of the basic principles and the 20% of rules that are encountered 80% of the time so these initial levels of description may be a bit clearer and more of the 'rabbit hole' of complexity is alluded to, but slightly more partitioned. I know there is an intro section and many basic intro sheets out there. I just think that some of that more simple description can be applied to the basic 'surface' parts for everyday play even if it may add a touch to the length of the total comprehensive set. The really knowledgeable rules folks could even adopt an 'insider' shorthand referring to a rules question as a tier I, II, III rules scenario.

I took one stab at casting some of the principles around what a player is permitted to do to play the game. The basic exceptions to these would be the next layer, procedures for free relief and relief under penalty would follow, then the penalties for breaking rules in the various types of play, definitions and special cases / rulings would be appendices. It is unlikely to happen because it would change what people are familiar with (and could create some unforseen headaches), but I do think the official rulebook could be tweaked someday to make it more accessible / readable even if it doesn't change how complex they have to be to deal with all the potential situations encountered under competition.

Here's my stab at the top level using more 'affirmative' language:

• The game of golf consists of a player moving a ball at rest from the teeing ground into the hole by striking at the ball using a club with as few strokes as possible in accordance with the rules.
• A player is permitted 14 conforming clubs (see appendix). A player is permitted a single conforming ball (see appendix) in play and unlimited conforming spare balls.
• A player is permitted to take fairly take a firmly footed stance (without building one), to ground their club lightly behind the ball (no more than the weight of the club resting on the grass or ground), and to fairly strike at the ball with the head of the club (without pushing, scraping, or spooning).
• A player, fellow competitor, marker, opponent, or caddie must not take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole unless permitted under the rules.
• To avoid gaining a potential advantage or conferring a potential disadvantage in the course of play a player generally must play the ball at rest, as it lies, and the course as they find it.
• A player is generally permitted to move, bend, or break growing vegetation and disturb the surface of the course only to the minimum extent needed to fairly take a stance, and/or as part of a fairly made stroke (including the backswing if the stroke is taken), and to search for and identify their ball. 

Rather than trying to create something new, use the Quick Guide to the Rules of Golf at the front of the Rule book.

[natureboy]

1 minute ago, rogolf said:

Rather than trying to create something new, use the Quick Guide to the Rules of Golf at the front of the Rule book.

I've read it and thought it's a good primer and language is simpler. I'll have to re-read to recall why my impression was there might still be room for improvement. Perhaps my thought was that some may take the view that if the rules require a multi-page 'quick guide' they must be over my head so why bother. If the 'official' portion of the rules had a more obvious hierarchy instead of the 'don't go in there' deep woods of legalistic language, more people might engage with the core rules and better understand the landmarks in the course of play for when certain exceptions or penalties come into play. Admittedly that's a big if.

Did you see anything in what I wrote that is incompatible or contrary (as a top level) to the principles or full rules? Personally, I would have found the last bullet point helpful in my initial understanding as I found the very unequivocal statement of play the course as you find it to potentially imply that any vegetation disturbance was a no-no. But that was an overly legalistic view. However, when much of the writing is quite legalistic an unequivocally stated proviso that actually has some exceptions it can create some confusion particularly as one learns the definitions, which are not arranged in order of conceptual importance / frequency of being encountered.

[rogolf]

58 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I've read it and thought it's a good primer and language is simpler. I'll have to re-read to recall why my impression was there might still be room for improvement. Perhaps my thought was that some may take the view that if the rules require a multi-page 'quick guide' they must be over my head so why bother. If the 'official' portion of the rules had a more obvious hierarchy instead of the 'don't go in there' deep woods of legalistic language, more people might engage with the core rules and better understand the landmarks in the course of play for when certain exceptions or penalties come into play. Admittedly that's a big if.

Did you see anything in what I wrote that is incompatible or contrary (as a top level) to the principles or full rules? Personally, I would have found the last bullet point helpful in my initial understanding as I found the very unequivocal statement of play the course as you find it to potentially imply that any vegetation disturbance was a no-no. But that was an overly legalistic view. However, when much of the writing is quite legalistic an unequivocally stated proviso that actually has some exceptions it can create some confusion particularly as one learns the definitions, which are not arranged in order of conceptual importance / frequency of being encountered.

In my opinion, while you are trying to be simple, your reference to "in accordance with the Rules", "fairly taking a firmly footed stance", "lightly grounding a club" will lead right back to the Rules which you are trying to simplify.  If you want principles, read Tufts' book.

[natureboy]

20 hours ago, rogolf said:

In my opinion, while you are trying to be simple, your reference to "in accordance with the Rules", "fairly taking a firmly footed stance", "lightly grounding a club" will lead right back to the Rules which you are trying to simplify.  If you want principles, read Tufts' book.

I have read Tufts' book. I get what you are saying, but the goal with what I wrote was to state using affirmative language a few basics on what what a golfer could generally do rather than 'do nots'. I kept as much of the orginal terms both for brevity and as a nod to tradition, but some of the phrases could be replaced with plain language or explained if referred to repeatedly in the full rules text.