Jump to content
iacas

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

Note: This thread is 785 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

264 posts / 18310 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

As last happened in 1984, the USGA and R&A are reviewing the Rules of Golf, top to bottom, end to end, 1 through 34. They tend to do this every 25-35 years or so.

They may make sweeping changes. They may decide they pretty much like them as they are.

The only guiding principles are… the Principles as outlined in:

So, what changes do you think they should make? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

They should allow you to place the ball instead of the 3 drop place rule they have now. It would speed up playing time for a lot of guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

They should allow you to place the ball instead of the 3 drop place rule they have now. It would speed up playing time for a lot of guys.

I don't think it would speed up playing time appreciably. I don't even think most drops take more than one time to get right. And… it would be at the cost of the randomness they like.

But everything is on the table, I've heard. Including drops. Including things that some of us might think go against Tufts' principles. At first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I am not sure how many weekend warriors actually play "strickly"  by the rules as it is.

They need to simplify the rules for the masses of non professionals.  Changing all OBs, and water hazards to laterals with a 1 stroke penalty, and a drop would help speed up the game. 

Me personally I would like a 15 club rule, since I always have an extra club laying around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I couldn't disagree more with @Patch.  Bifurcation of the rules accomplishes nothing.  Those that choose to play by the rules will do so.  Those that choose not to, also will continue to do so, regardless of what the rules actually are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I am curious if they will make changes to appeal to those who complain that the rules are too complicated and/or difficult to follow or if they mostly stand pat with what they are today.  

I'll be okay with whatever they decide but I can see some areas where simplification might make it easier for some to adhere to the rules.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

33 minutes ago, Patch said:

I am not sure how many weekend warriors actually play "strickly"  by the rules as it is.

They need to simplify the rules for the masses of non professionals.  Changing all OBs, and water hazards to laterals with a 1 stroke penalty, and a drop would help speed up the game. 

Those are non-starters, because they violate the very basic Principles.

They also don't care about changing the Rules to satisfy people who… don't play by the rules. That wouldn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I couldn't disagree more.  Bifurcation of the rules accomplishes nothing.  Those that choose to play by the rules will do so.  Those that choose not to, also will continue to do so, regardless of what the rules actually are.

That's definitely true on both levels.

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Those are non-starters, because they violate the very basic Principles.

They also don't care about changing the Rules to satisfy people who… don't play by the rules. That wouldn't make any sense.

Erik, well said, people who don't play by the rules are going to continue to not play by the rules...

 

Let me clarify the two I'd like to see changed.

1. Unplayables in Bunkers: I'd like to see an option where you can drop outside of the bunker if it is within the two clublengths of the unplayable lie.

2. Sand-Filled Divots: They either need to make all sand filled divots GUR by the rules of golf or committees need to mark off the area of sand filled divots as ground under repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

7 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

1. Unplayables in Bunkers: I'd like to see an option where you can drop outside of the bunker if it is within the two clublengths of the unplayable lie.

That one's here:

Maybe I'll ask them about that one tomorrow.

7 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

2. Sand-Filled Divots: They either need to make all sand filled divots GUR by the rules of golf or committees need to mark off the area of sand filled divots as ground under repair.

Probably never gonna happen It violates the principle of playing the course as you find it, and you can't reasonably define "divot hole" in such a way that everyone will apply the definition similarly. How much sand is necessary? What if some sand washes away? What if someone forgets to fill a divot hole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You have a point, it would violate the play the course as you find it... 

I've noticed a lot of courses are going away from using sand as much, its more like a seed mix, they put on the carts now. 

They could outlaw sand for divot repair, but that is off-topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

There is only one part of the Rules/Decisions that I've thought could benefit from some simplification: Rule 8 (Advice; Indicating Line of Play).

I understand why the rules against advice exist (the principle of fair play), but it seems like they create subjective situations ("casually" indicating what club was just used, for example) whose complication exceeds that value of the rule itself.  Similarly, having the line of a putt only indicated by partners or caddies seems a strange distinction when the line of play can be indicated by anyone.

I certainly fall in the camp that is skeptical of pretty much any recommended change to the rules, but that's the one that always seemed a bit odd to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

The one Erik wants to see, unplayables in bunkers, and sand filled divots are automatically ground under repair.

It's worth pointing out that I changed my mind later in that topic:

I think the only rule I'd support changing right now is…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I think the rules are pretty good as they are.  Nothing really stands out that I think needs changing. :)

Erik, made me realize something. The rules as a whole don't need much changing. 

Even with the changes, I suggested above, they're something that doesn't come up very much.

One thing, I would like to see, possibly is some of the language is a little confusing for some beginners I know. Maybe simplify the language a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

In thinking about this question, it was helpful (for me) to go back and look at the rules that were changed in 1984.  A little tough to find comprehensive information, but this was a good summary:

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/20/sports/golf-rules-changed-for-some-situations.html

Apologies if this is off-topic, but it was good background info for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, iacas said:

It's worth pointing out that I changed my mind later in that topic:

I think the only rule I'd support changing right now is…

I'd go along with you on alignment assistance, and I'd add one more.  

I'd like to see the R&A soften it's stand on the embedded ball and allow it to be in effect through the green.  My understanding is that the USGA has wanted this for some time, but the R&A always vetoes it.  

That way they could eliminate the fuzzy wording about grass closely mowed to fairway height.  By eliminating any reference to "fairway" they take a lot of the steam out of the lobbying for relief from divots.  If the rules don't recognize the existence of "fairway", then you couldn't realistically take relief from something just because the grass is shorter in one place than it is ten feet away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 785 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Posts

    • Who faced the tougher competition?   My analysis covers the 20 Masters Tournaments Woods has played in as a pro (1997 – 2019), and the first 21 Masters Tournament Nicklaus participated (1960 – 1982).   The Masters Tournament was chosen because the Masters is the only event played on the same course—Augusta National—each year.   I have one underlying assumption with regards to Tournament scoring. Golfing technology and equipment have steadily advanced. However, after researching the USGA opinions and the course overhauls that occurred in response to the technological advancements, I believe course designers have done a job preserving the emphasis on the player skill.    My assumption is that the efforts by executive committees to create more challenging courses has offset the permitted use of more advanced equipment. As a result I feel confident that the Tournament scores from the Nicklaus period in the sample (1960-1982) can be compared to the Masters leaderboards from the Woods period (1997-2019) within the margin of error of any statistical adjustment.      I merged the field from Woods’ first Tournament in ’97 with the field in Nicklaus’ first Tournament in ’60, maintaining the cut line at the top 50 qualifiers. I simply repeated this process through the 2019 and the 1982 Masters Tournaments.   In this period that I assessed, Woods did not participate in three tournaments ’14, ’16, and ‘17. Nicklaus did not participate in one tournament in ’67. Although the Masters Tournaments in ’61, ’73, 2003-2007 were played in poor weather conditions, after reviewing the cut lines, only ’03 and ’05 seem to be significantly affected by weather. A slight adjustment was made to players scores to normalize the scores.    After taking measure among the qualifiers during the merged tournaments displayed in the link, I found that the level of difficulty increased in the Woods’ era 28.1%.   ·     68% of the top 50 lowest qualifying scores are from the Woods’ era See 2ndsheet in link, labelled “top 50”   Additional Findings:   -      After merging the best of the two periods, Woods finishes with an estimated 4 green jackets and Nicklaus finishes with 2. -      If Woods competed in the Nicklaus period, Woods would have an estimated 9 green jackets. If Nicklaus competed in the Woods era, Nicklaus would have an estimated 5 green jackets. *Note: Nicklaus finished his career playing in 15 additional Masters Tournaments beginning in 1983. Woods is still active as of 2019. -      Woods finishes the 23 Tournament sample 106 below par. Nicklaus finishes the 23 Tournament sample 75 below par. Missing the hypothetical cut = +10 towards Masters career score.    Woods vs. Nicklaus  
    • A buddy of mine gave me a Bobby Jones 460cc black driver today and I played absolutely great with it! Highlight of today's round, however, was a beautiful 3 wood onto a par 3 that landed about 7-8 feet from the hole. There must have been a closest to the pin challenge earlier in the morning, because a marker was out there. My shot would have won it today had I been there to play in it 🙂 Overall, really solid round. Still some inconsistencies with iron play, but it's getting the better (the last three holes were really good with my 6, 7, 8, and W). 
    • Who knows. Maybe not happy that Nick reported the 2017 Champions Dinner story in the media. Tiger might have said things in that room that he expected the other Champions to keep to themselves instead of spouting to the media about it.
    • Not sure if it counts, but: Scrambled with some great guys today (foursome). We played an absolutely beautiful course. Shot a 73. 
    • You do realize my response was to “Diece”? But addressing your post, glad you are improving. However, even at 59, I usually play at 6700+ yards. On a mini tour, you will be at 7200 minimum, and expected to be under par, at least if you plan to play for a living. either way, golf should never define you. And making boast about a difficult game is a recipe for disappointment. But like most of the folks on this site, we will be ok if proven wrong. Will you be ok if we are proven right?
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Stillhacken
      Stillhacken
      (47 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...