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

[Rulesman]

I think it is more about rewording and restructuring rather than fundamental changes to the philosophy or wholesale changes to the individual rules. The latter could have been done in the 4 year intervals.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Rulesman

[k-troop]

I'm thinking about how equipment has evolved over the last 3 decades (weights/materials, balls, hybrids, anchored putters, etc.), and how that has changed the way we play, course design, or in some cases even make a stroke (in the case of long putters).  I could see them draft a couple of rules that clearly state the spirit of the game.  Where is the line between valid golf and unfair advantage with respect to equipment and/or stroke?

It seems the way they've approached this has been piecemeal and reactive to specific items of equipment or technologies.  A new approach that looks forward might help equipment manufacturers better know where their limits are.  

(I'll add that I haven't the first idea what the new rules should be, or even if this is really needed.  Just a perception.)

[k-troop]

I'd also like to see a comprehensive re-look at the rules associated with hazards, OB, lost balls, provisionals, and stroke-and-distance.  The goal of a re-write (if needed) should be rules that can be intuitively applied, save time, and eliminate disproportionately unfair results. 

Example:  tee ball lands in a tree.  The spectators in the vicinity of where it landed saw/heard it and it was caught on camera.  Everyone knows it's in the tree.  However, the player has to actually climb the tree and identify the ball in order to get relief.  If he can't, then he has to trudge all the way back to the tee for a stroke-and-distance penalty.

This scenario doesn't happen all that often, and doesn't apply to us mortals without galleries and TV coverage, but here's one that does:  ball is lost in a place where it shouldn't be lost.  Maybe it's soft rough, or fall leaves, or a stand of trees separating two fairways, but there is no doubt the ball is in there somewhere (i.e. it's not in a hazard, OB, or out of play).  

In both of these scenarios the S&D penalty creates incentive to spend a long time looking for the ball, only to ultimately have a long trip back to the tee, taking even more time.  These are the scenarios that seem most unfair the player, add the most time, and are most likely to be broken.

Chalk me up also in the group that doesn't see why an OB should be more penal than a hazard (or a whiff/shank), particularly as residential development courses bring OB stakes ever closer to the fairways.  Still, I can see the logic in making one area more penal than another because you can stand on the tee and identify where the trouble is.  Random lost ball zones are not as clear to the player when he's setting up his shot.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

I think it is more about rewording and restructuring rather than fundamental changes to the philosophy or wholesale changes to the individual rules. The latter could have been done in the 4 year intervals.

Everything is on the table. They can rewrite. Re-organize. Do nothing. Etc.

 

[Martyn W]

9 hours ago, Patch said:

Changing all OBs, and water hazards to laterals with a 1 stroke penalty, and a drop would help speed up the game. 

They tried that in 1960, it was called the Noble Experiment and it didn't work.

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, David in FL said:

Allow spike marks on the green to be repaired, as pitch marks are.

 

I agree with this one. It has two benefits, one for the player and the other for the green itself.

[No Mulligans]

Balboa Park executive 9 hole course has on the scorecard that all boundary fences are considered lateral hazards.  And, this course has a USGA course rating.

So, hitting off the property doesn't have to be OB?

I also would like to see the removal of the OB distinction and have them be lateral hazards instead.

[Fourputt]

40 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Balboa Park executive 9 hole course has on the scorecard that all boundary fences are considered lateral hazards.  And, this course has a USGA course rating.

So, hitting off the property doesn't have to be OB?

I also would like to see the removal of the OB distinction and have them be lateral hazards instead.

Sorry, but that is NOT an authorized local rule and playing to that without modifying one's score properly to the instructions in the handicap manual would invalidate any scores returned for handicap.  The rating crew would not have taken such a rule into account when rating the course.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Sorry, but that is NOT an authorized local rule and playing to that without modifying one's score properly to the instructions in the handicap manual would invalidate any scores returned for handicap.  The rating crew would not have taken such a rule into account when rating the course.

Correct except in areas that meet the definition of a water hazard.

[bkuehn1952]

When taking relief that includes a penalty, other than within a hazard or on the green, one places the ball within the area one would normally drop. This includes the use of a drop area following taking a penalty.

When taking relief that does not include a penalty, other than on the green, one drops within the area one would normally drop (i.e. no real change).  When in a hazard, one always drops rather than places except in those situations where the current Rules allows one to "recreate" one's lie, etc...

My rationale is that once one has taken the penalty, it is not unreasonable to give that player decent lie within the confines of the area in which he would normally drop (except when in a hazard).  When one is taking relief from GUR, casual water, etc... the desired randomness still applies.

I don't see the R&A/USGA acting on my thoughts and that is okay by me.

 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

My rationale is that once one has taken the penalty, it is not unreasonable to give that player decent lie within the confines of the area in which he would normally drop (except when in a hazard).  When one is taking relief from GUR, casual water, etc... the desired randomness still applies.

When dropping under unplayable, though, there's no guarantee (nor should there be, I would argue) that the player is entitled to be free of the unplayable lie. So why should the player be guaranteed to get the "best" lie by placing?

The Rules of Golf can and I would argue should continue to support dropping over placing, unless perhaps for some reason they simply allowed you to place the ball everywhere, which will as you can imagine likely never be instituted.

[Abu3baid]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

When dropping under unplayable, though, there's no guarantee (nor should there be, I would argue) that the player is entitled to be free of the unplayable lie. So why should the player be guaranteed to get the "best" lie by placing?

The Rules of Golf can and I would argue should continue to support dropping over placing, unless perhaps for some reason they simply allowed you to place the ball everywhere, which will as you can imagine likely never be instituted.

But they were already penalized for taking the unplayable?  Why would you argue that there shouldn't be a guarnetee of a perfect lie?  Placing is such a simpler activity and in this situation I don't see how it breaks the underlining principle of playing the ball as it lie (since you paid to get that perfect lie)

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

But they were already penalized for taking the unplayable?  Why would you argue that there shouldn't be a guarnetee of a perfect lie?  Placing is such a simpler activity and in this situation I don't see how it breaks the underlining principle of playing the ball as it lie (since you paid to get that perfect lie)

Why should you be able to pay to get a perfect lie? You skip right over that.

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, Rulesman said:

I think it is more about rewording and restructuring rather than fundamental changes to the philosophy or wholesale changes to the individual rules.

This would be my preference. There are some good 'primers' on the rules basics available, but they don't actually come with the new membership / USGA rulebook. I would like to see more of a kind of overview / top layer section that helps new players 'see' (or mentally organize) the outline structure of the rules / scenarios with some plain language summary before an immediate dive into full rules lingo, which was initially off-putting to me. As a new golfer, I just wanted to play not prepare for the golf bar exam.

Also there's some language / definitions about burrowing animals / insects / dangerous animals (fire ants, termite mounds) that could be updated to be more scientific and more relevant to a game that is now played world-wide instead of just in Scotland.

14 hours ago, David in FL said:

Allow spike marks on the green to be repaired, as pitch marks are.

This is one distinction that doesn't quite make sense to me. Maybe include general damage to green surface to cover idiots who whack the green with their putter in frustration or are clumsy with the flagstick.

7 hours ago, k-troop said:

I'm thinking about how equipment has evolved over the last 3 decades (weights/materials, balls, hybrids, anchored putters, etc.), and how that has changed the way we play, course design, or in some cases even make a stroke (in the case of long putters).  I could see them draft a couple of rules that clearly state the spirit of the game.  Where is the line between valid golf and unfair advantage with respect to equipment and/or stroke?

It seems the way they've approached this has been piecemeal and reactive to specific items of equipment or technologies.  A new approach that looks forward might help equipment manufacturers better know where their limits are.  

(I'll add that I haven't the first idea what the new rules should be, or even if this is really needed.  Just a perception.)

That's an interesting idea. I don't have a suggested rule either, but it seems that the tech advances that have been 'best' for the game were those that made it less expensive and accessible to more players. The guttie ball, cast iron heads, and steel shafts drastically reduced the cost of equipment, bringing more people into the game. Not sure the recent equipment arms race has reduced relative out of pocket costs, though 'more tech' per real dollar spent is probably available to the average player than in the past.

Longer courses have definitely increased average costs through the need for more land area, more water, and more maintenance crew and/or equipment. But new golfers don't need to play 'championship' level courses and to enjoy themselves, probably shouldn't. I hope exec and short 9-hole courses start to make a comeback in market share.

[Abu3baid]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why should you be able to pay to get a perfect lie? You skip right over that.

Why not?  You have already paid a penalty of one stroke (i.e. for what ever reason, unplayable, hazard).  As long as you are placing within the "drop zone" ie "place zone" (to be named later) doesn't seem to be any ambiguity in the matter at all and it can be applied across the board.. 

Im pretty sure thy won't be changing this rule anytime soon, but I wouldn't have an issue if they did.

[Hardspoon]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

When dropping under unplayable, though, there's no guarantee (nor should there be, I would argue) that the player is entitled to be free of the unplayable lie. So why should the player be guaranteed to get the "best" lie by placing?

Agreed.  This gets brought up a lot when people are discussing rule changes; I think a lot of people view this as "unfair".  But they have to remember that the option for stroke-and-distance ALWAYS exists as an alternative, and it's also the player's job to find an advantageous area to drop.

13 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Why not?  You have already paid a penalty of one stroke (i.e. for what ever reason, unplayable, hazard).  As long as you are placing within the "drop zone" ie "place zone" (to be named later) doesn't seem to be any ambiguity in the matter at all and it can be applied across the board.. 

You're taking the penalty to be "relieved" of the original situation...doesn't mean you're guaranteed not to end up with another unplayable.  If you take stroke-and-distance, it doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have a good shot next time.  Selecting an advantageous area for taking relief is a "skill", and should involve risk-and-reward.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Why not?  You have already paid a penalty of one stroke (i.e. for what ever reason, unplayable, hazard).  As long as you are placing within the "drop zone" ie "place zone" (to be named later) doesn't seem to be any ambiguity in the matter at all and it can be applied across the board.. 

Im pretty sure thy won't be changing this rule anytime soon, but I wouldn't have an issue if they did.

Read @Hardspoon's answer.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

When dropping under unplayable, though, there's no guarantee (nor should there be, I would argue) that the player is entitled to be free of the unplayable lie. So why should the player be guaranteed to get the "best" lie by placing?

The Rules of Golf can and I would argue should continue to support dropping over placing, unless perhaps for some reason they simply allowed you to place the ball everywhere, which will as you can imagine likely never be instituted.

 

1 hour ago, Abu3baid said:

But they were already penalized for taking the unplayable?  Why would you argue that there shouldn't be a guarnetee of a perfect lie?  Placing is such a simpler activity and in this situation I don't see how it breaks the underlining principle of playing the ball as it lie (since you paid to get that perfect lie)

(Imagine that I'm channeling Richard Tufts)  There is a delightful randomness to golf and to the way the ball rolls and settles into its lie.  To remove that from the game by placing the ball instead of dropping would remove that element of suspense and surprise which is so eagerly (or fearfully) anticipated as we commence the dropping process.

It also encourages the player to seriously consider playing a stroke from the original lie if such is possible, rather than take the chance of dropping into an even less fortunate situation.