USGA/R&A Re-Evaluating All Rules, Top to Bottom

[iacas]

http://www.golfchannel.com/media?guid=BZUJRxVDuoEixU277V05hqCyo4tGZUKw

[Club Rat]

Interesting comments from "Morning Read" - John Gordon, who has covered golf for more than 30 years for Canadian newspapers, magazines and a TV network, has authored eight books on the game. He lives in Midland, Ontario.

Quote

Even as a rules aficionado and a lawyer, Kuhn says he struggled to understand some of the more obtuse sections of the Rules of Golf. 

“I couldn’t believe anyone could possibly believe that the average golfer would pick that book up and actually read and understand it,” Kuhn said. So, with the editorial assistance of Garner, he rewrote every rule into a much more understandable and logical fashion.

Quote

“The irony is that golf is very proud that it is self-policing and we don’t need officials blowing whistles or throwing flags and that it’s the honor of the players that makes the game what it is,” Kuhn said, “but we have a rule book no one wants to read.”

Quote

While kudos go to the USGA and R&A for this initiative, golf’s governing bodies also should be dinged at least two figurative strokes for the glacial pace of change regarding the bloated rules book. And let’s not even mention its morbidly obese companion volume, the 752-page Decisions on the Rules of Golf. What’s been the holdup?

 

[iacas]

I never cared for the "what's been the holdup?" style commentary. It's happening now, so whether it's too late or right on time, nothing is going to change about that now. If you're commenting to say "why did you wait so long?" you're commenting on something that's no longer the case - they're doing what they can NOW, so clearly they recognized that something was the holdup.

Plus, things done in a rush are rarely done well, and this has been a decade or so in the making. A decade ago when this project was begun, there wasn't a huge call out for "simplifying" the rules of the game. I think the millennials are somewhat responsible for the change. Which is fine, because…

I think simplifying the rules is going to be a good thing, long term. I think lowering the barrier to understanding the rules doesn't change one bit how many golfers play golf, but will change how many golfers will play golf under the rules (or more under the rules than they do now).

[iacas]

BTW, when the new rules are released in March, we'll do three things.

1. Start a new topic, so people don't have to wade through 15 pages of this one to get to the discussion of the new proposed rules for discussion.
2. Link to that new topic in a post here.
3. Lock this topic.

[Rulesman]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

BTW, when the new rules are released in March, we'll do three things.

1.  
2.  
3. Lock this topic.

Thank goodness

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

Thank goodness

Why?

[No Mulligans]

I'm not fond of the "virtually certain" wording regarding a lateral water hazard vs. a lost ball.  I think if it was changed to "more likely than not" the rule would be applied more consistently from player to player. It's a game of honor, "more likely than not" should suffice.

I think the problem with "virtually certain" is some personalities see things as black and white and are quick to jump to conclusions.  They would simple believe, "it's in the hazard, I'm certain of it".

A person who sees the world as shades of grey and isn't quick to a decision might play the identical same shot where ones view is blocked when the ball lands and since he didn't see it hit the water he feels there is no way to be "virtually certain".  Maybe the first bounce ricocheted off a sprinkler to who knows where, maybe the ball embedded, etc.

If the wording was "more likely than not", the decision would be simple and both players would come to the same conclusion regarding the rule (in the majority of cases).

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Why?

It's become a mix of speculation and "what I like" or "what I don't like now". Much like many many threads before - it's just a grand replay.

Why can't it all just wait until the proposals are known.

Everything being said now has either been included or ignored, the draft isn't going to incorporate any new until after the public have made their views known.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Rulesman

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

It's become a mix of speculation and "what I like" or "what I don't like now". Much like many many threads before - it's just a grand replay.

Why can't it all just wait until the proposals are known.

Everything being said now has either been included or ignored, the draft isn't going to incorporate any new until after the public have made their views known.

Okay, but that's fine. The thread is pretty old considering. Until it's out all we can do is speculate, talk about rumors, etc.

[Rulesman]

OK. I'll just have to have patience. 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

OK. I'll just have to have patience. 

About a month or so.

If you know things for certain, and can share them… feel free to start a new topic now.

[iacas]

This is the new topic. Please go there to discuss the "Modernized" Rules of Golf.