SimpleGolfRules.com - Thoughts?

[iacas]

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/ - based on the current (as of 2011?) Rules of Golf

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/ - described by the authors as "dramatically different."

Too far? Just right?

Essential and foundational principles undermined?

[Hardspoon]

Code Two:

I think that Code Two goes too far.  Clearly, the "points" system is a fundamental change that would alter the game in a way that most people would find unacceptable.  Sure, the big advantage (capping holes at "no points") is convenient, but I don't think the game as a whole should be treated in a fashion similar to ESC.  Also, minor tweaks have issues as well, mostly in cases violating the idea of playing the ball as it lies.  Some examples (these quotes are from the "Principal Changes" document):

• It is permissible to play a moving ball.

• Allows for the substitution of a ball whenever the original ball has been lifted to remove the disparate treatment that existed under the relief rules

There are plenty of other examples, but I just think the fundamental change in scoring is not an acceptable one, so I didn't spend too much time on the details.

 

Code One:

I actually like a lot of the concepts here.  In general, a lot of simplification was achieved without violation of the Principles.  Some examples:

• Removed 'unauthorized attendance' portion of Rule 16 as 'exerting influence' Rule addresses the situation.

• Combination of former Rules 24 and 25 into a single rule as the relief procedures for immovable obstructions and abnormal ground conditions are essentially the same.

• Eliminated authority for the player to make certain types of practice strokes during the round. The question as to where a player may practice and what type of strokes he may make has caused confusion. 

• Specified that the tee-markers of the player's teeing ground are immovable obstructions during play of the hole. 

There are more (and maybe these aren't the best examples), but I think this represents the best chance of making a "better version" of the RoG.  It takes situations that are treated very similarly and combines them under one rule.  Any minor (and rare) distinctions could be treated with Decisions.

I do think there are some issues, of course.  The idea of treating all water hazards the same, for example...I like it in theory, but I can understand why it wouldn't be acceptable to some...and might even limit course design or make a course play unequally.

Some stuff I think just isn't a good idea, like replacing all drops with placing the ball.  Dropping is meant to replicate the element of chance in determining lie, and the Rules (currently) are very thoughtful about when each of those should be used.  I don't think the benefit (simplification) in that case outweighs the downside (loss of "granularity").

 

Overall, this is neat.  I'm actually going to dig into it a bit more.  One thing that intrigues me is the suggestion that adding definitions, like "Environment of the Ball" could be a tool to simplify the Rules.  It'd never occurred to me.  I'm not sure about their implementation, but it definitely has potential.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Hardspoon
Corrected grammar

[Fourputt]

One doesn't do enough to be worth the effort to learn the changes and Two goes too far beyond the basic principles of the game.  I don't think that either change would do anything to inspire the casual player to play by the rules.

[iacas]

I've not looked much at version 1.

Version 2's scoring makes no sense to me. If you're just going to make a linear scale (0 through 6)… why not just write down the actual score you get on the hole?

It's not like the scoring goes 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 or something like that. It's linear, by ones… just like strokes.

It makes no sense at all. And the scoring system alone is enough reason to save the time in skipping the rest of the Rules in Code Two.

[Fourputt]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

I've not looked much at version 1.

Version 2's scoring makes no sense to me. If you're just going to make a linear scale (0 through 6)… why not just write down the actual score you get on the hole?

It's not like the scoring goes 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 or something like that. It's linear, by ones… just like strokes.

It makes no sense at all. And the scoring system alone is enough reason to save the time in skipping the rest of the Rules in Code Two.

I didn't bother to read all of #1 either, just enough to get the general drift.  It doesn't seem to change enough to be worth the effort.

[iacas]

Code Two, printed from http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwo.html, is 44 pages long… on 8.5 x 11" pages. It's not much simpler, and it's the more radical of the two.

On a 4 x 6" page, Code One is over 100 pages long.

[Fourputt]

54 minutes ago, iacas said:

Code Two, printed from http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwo.html, is 44 pages long… on 8.5 x 11" pages. It's not much simpler, and it's the more radical of the two.

On a 4 x 6" page, Code One is over 100 pages long.

I guess that "simple" is only in the mind of the writer.

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Version 2's scoring makes no sense to me. If you're just going to make a linear scale (0 through 6)… why not just write down the actual score you get on the hole?

It's not like the scoring goes 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 or something like that. It's linear, by ones… just like strokes.

It makes no sense at all. And the scoring system alone is enough reason to save the time in skipping the rest of the Rules in Code Two.

I wondered about that too. Is it possible that the intent was to make it relative to each player's handicap index and is talking about net score RTP? Sort of like Stableford? So penalty situation results in an automatic no points = zero or net double bogey.

 

---

Comments on the general topic

I liked they way they framed their approach with these guiding concepts, which seem to make a lot of sense as a 'fresh' starting point:

1. Exceptions add complexity;
2. Local Rules and conditions of competition add complexity and confusion;
3. We should be more willing to accept the occasional terrible or great result if it would lead to a significantly simpler Rule that adequately addresses 99% of incidents; the Rules should not become bogged down to address the 1%;
   • One of the 'Principles of Golf' is that the rules should not attempt to deal with the exceptional which this seems in line with.
4. While not a primary aim of this project, any changes that would allow for a quicker pace of play would be welcomed;
   • I think the Stableford scoring approach in Code 2 is intended to address the desire for quicker pace of play and eliminate the delays caused by a player not wanting to proceed forward under risk of committing additional breaches by just having them pick up and move forward.
5. There are too many procedures for putting a ball into play (placing v. dropping; as near as possible v. with in one club-length v, within two club-lengths v. on a line);
6. There are too many differences in the Rules for match play and stroke play; and
7. There are too many differences in the treatment of different parts of the course.

 

Concepts in their approach I liked:

• Standard relief procedure
• Universal cleaning & substituting (same brand / model) on lifting
• Universal rule on practice strokes (with a ball)
• One type of water hazard
• Focusing primarily on the environment of the ball with regards to prohibited actions
• Playing from wrong place rule same throughout course
• Immovable obstructions and abnormal ground conditions combined in one rule
• Abnormal ground condition applies to any animal 'burrow'
  • this may need an extension to include 'mounds' like for termites and large ant colonies
  • or needs distinction between animal / insect / worm though (or as distinct from defined loose impediments) given Bubba's argument about ants falling under the scientific definition of animal
• Tee markers (ones you are playing) defined as immovable obstructions
• Embedded ball relief through the green
• Adding aeration hole and turf seam procedures to the rules as 'common situations' vs. optional local rules

 

Concepts I found interesting, but wasn't sure about:

• No dropping, always placing.
  • does placing vs dropping create potential for easier lies on certain grass types or surfaces like Bermuda?
  • I don't see this one saving a lot of time, because players would still fret over choice of the perfect placement spot as much as they would over the ideal spot to drop from.
  • would seem to make relief in a sandy waste area less penal.
• Ball at rest accidentally moved simply replaced
  • I like the simplicity of it though can see arguments arising about where correct replacement should be if the spot wasn't marked and recreating the same lie (possibly exceptional)
  • DQ from serious breach is available if player skirts the spirit of the rule
• Loose impediments moveable throughout course
  • would this encourage excessive 'greenskeeping' in rough areas of the course that are intended to be more difficult to play from (Rory gets to move the wood pile at Augusta)?
• Elimination of penalty for touching the ground in hazards and on the putting green
  • still maintains penalty for testing the hazard conditions or improving the line of putt, but would the line get too blurred?
• Play of wrong ball simply replayed
  • seems fair and relatively inconsequential, but does it invite gamesmanship?
  • potential difficulties with determining location of original lie?
• Three minutes to find lost ball

 

Concepts I disagreed with:

• Eliminating stroke & distance for lost / OB
  • though it makes more sense with the Stableford approach in Code2

Edited November 19, 2016 by natureboy

[turtleback]

On 11/18/2016 at 9:26 AM, Fourputt said:

One doesn't do enough to be worth the effort to learn the changes and Two goes too far beyond the basic principles of the game.  I don't think that either change would do anything to inspire the casual player to play by the rules.

Why we would want to change the rules for the benefit of people who do not and never will play by the rules is beyond me.  If someone is serious about playing by the rules they can do so quite easily in 99+% of the situations that arise with the rules as they are, with just a modicum of effort.  And the ones who are not serious about playing by the rules will be just as un-serious about it no matter how the rules are changed.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

Why we would want to change the rules for the benefit of people who do not and never will play by the rules is beyond me.  If someone is serious about playing by the rules they can do so quite easily in 99+% of the situations that arise with the rules as they are, with just a modicum of effort.  And the ones who are not serious about playing by the rules will be just as un-serious about it no matter how the rules are changed.

That's a valid perspective. Changing the rules may not encourage any more folks to try or stick with the game.

The flip side is that the skills  of the game itself are very hard to get good at. Do you want a player on the fence about sticking with golf to take a look at the official rulebook they receive in the mail and think 'geez, I haven't nearly mastered the game, let alone that ponderous thing full of small print...I'll never be a complete/serious golfer'. It's more of a perception thing than reality. Also the perception of someone wondering about the game who watches on tv and sees a somewhat arcane rule being described or applied may make it seem less inviting / appealing.

There's also the ultimate goal of more people playing by the rules and having valid HCPs. The simpler (not necessarily easier) the rules seem to be the less players may be inclined to forgo things like stroke/distance and use the correct relief procedure. If more people know the basics, because they're simpler, the more there's likely to be a general social pressure to conform, because that's what everyone is doing vs. the current scenario of many/most casual golfers ignoring the rules or playing 'relaxed rules'.

I grant you the potential benefits aren't guaranteed, but possibly worth making the effort for.

Edited November 23, 2016 by natureboy

[Rulesman]

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

I haven't nearly mastered the game, let alone that ponderous thing full of small print...I'll never be a complete/serious golfer'.

If they haven't got dedication they'll never be a complete golfer.

[natureboy]

13 hours ago, Rulesman said:

If they haven't got dedication they'll never be a complete golfer.

I getcha, but do you get how it might seem like 'piling on' to an already difficult/frustrating game for some who are on the fence? I think the perception of the rules' complication is more an issue with people never trying it to begin with.

I understand that there's some tradition to the rules, but they've certainly evolved and changed over time. I don't discount the importance of tradition, but sometimes along with good sound workable solutions arrived at through trial and error you also get carry over of idiosyncrasies that may no longer serve as well in the new context.

I'm not for reinventing the game and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I think it's healthy to re-evaluate traditions from time-to-time. Are things like separate relief procedures and separate rules on when you can clean the ball once lifted crucially necessary? I personally like the idea of the more random 'drop' as more fitting with the spirit of the game, but maybe it's just a time-waster? I'm willing to take a look and discuss it.

Edited November 23, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

19 hours ago, natureboy said:

Do you want a player on the fence about sticking with golf to take a look at the official rulebook they receive in the mail and think 'geez, I haven't nearly mastered the game, let alone that ponderous thing full of small print...

Why is a player on the fence getting a rulebook in the mail?

19 hours ago, natureboy said:

Also the perception of someone wondering about the game who watches on tv and sees a somewhat arcane rule being described or applied may make it seem less inviting / appealing.

I don't know. People still watch the NFL, and the other major sports, and they have "arcane" rules too. They may even come up more frequently than the "arcane" rules we see in golf on TV.

19 hours ago, natureboy said:

The simpler (not necessarily easier) the rules seem to be the less players may be inclined to forgo things like stroke/distance and use the correct relief procedure.

That presumes that stroke and distance is at all complex. It's not. People just make excuses why they shouldn't go back and play from the tee (or wherever) again.

---

Code One doesn't seem to be simplified very much.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Why is a player on the fence getting a rulebook in the mail?

I don't know. People still watch the NFL, and the other major sports, and they have "arcane" rules too. They may even come up more frequently than the "arcane" rules we see in golf on TV.

That presumes that stroke and distance is at all complex. It's not. People just make excuses why they shouldn't go back and play from the tee (or wherever) again.

---

Code One doesn't seem to be simplified very much.

There are those who go 'all in' with an initial undertaking including joining the USGA before the frustration really sets in. How many people join this forum when they are gung-ho and subsequently leave here and the game?

I did not come into golf through family. So there was no piecemeal introduction to the rules. The USGA rules book was my first introduction other than what I saw on tv. I read quite a bit, but then put it aside as tediously structured, and too time-consuming. I relied more on online overviews. 

To me, the football rules and their application always seemed simpler on tv vs golf even before I took up golf. Having read the rules and the Principles of the Rules of Golf, I haven't really altered that perspective. But I've never trained to be a football referee. Sometimes perception trumps 'actually'. I think this is a bigger factor than folks who get into the game and are turned off by the difficulty plus perceived complexity.

Walking back on a crowded course when you hit your ball to a spot where it 'should be' findable is incredibly annoying. I still wouldn't change stroke and distance, because I think it fundamentally alters the importance of long shots and the distance with accuracy fundamental skill. When you don't know and ignore some 'seemingly pointless' rules or variations of procedure it might make it easier to also ignore the big ones that really will affect scores / HCP and are essential to the core of what the game's challenge seems to me to be about (long, accurate, consistent, & sometimes imaginative).

---

Code One seems more like a tweak/update. I like the goals / intended approach in Code 2 much more. It kind of goes 'all the way' with changing some core aspects of the traditional game, but I think you might still be able to implement a lot of their concepts and specific changes in it while still preserving 1 & 2 stroke penalty situations, stroke/distance, & traditional scoring.

With unified sections (like one type of water hazard & 'standard relief') you can save some space in the rules and present a simpler 'top layer' of description that might make it easier for a newbie to get the big picture quickly vs. the current structure of rule / exceptions / specific penalties, rule / exceptions / specific penalties...

Edited November 24, 2016 by natureboy

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

There are those who go 'all in' with an initial undertaking including joining the USGA before the frustration really sets in. How many people join this forum when they are gung-ho and subsequently leave here and the game?

To me, the football rules and their application always seemed simpler on tv vs golf even before I took up golf. Having read the rules and the Principles of the Rules of Golf, I haven't really altered that perspective. Sometimes perception trumps 'actually'. I think this is a bigger factor than folks who get into the game and are turned off by the difficulty plus perceived complexity.

Walking back on a crowded course when you hit your ball to a spot where it 'should be' findable is annoying. I still wouldn't change stroke and distance, because I think it fundamentally alters the importance of the tee shot. When you don't know and ignore some 'seemingly pointless' rules or variations of procedure it may be easier to ignore the big ones that really will affect scores / HCP and are essential to the core of what the game's challenge seems to me to be about (long, accurate, consistent, & sometimes imaginative).

Code One seems more like a tweak/update. I like the goals / intended approach in Code 2 much more. It kind of goes 'all the way' with changing some core aspects of the traditional game, but I think you might still be able to implement a lot of their concepts and specific changes in it while still preserving 1 & 2 stroke penalty situations, stroke/distance, & traditional scoring. With unified sections (like 'standard relief') you can save some space in the rules and present a simpler 'top layer' of description that might make it easier to get the big picture vs. rule / exceptions / specific penalty, rule / exceptions / specific penalty...

Football is a simpler game in the sense that all teams play on a field with the same dimensions.  What players can or cannot do is based on their position.  

There is also no honor system in football, referees are hired to oversee the players and determine if the fouls they observed had an impact on the play.  A referee could literally throw a flag on almost every play in a football game and be justified in doing so.  

 

[natureboy]

18 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Football is a simpler game in the sense that all teams play on a field with the same dimensions.  What players can or cannot do is based on their position.  

There is also no honor system in football, referees are hired to oversee the players and determine if the fouls they observed had an impact on the play.  A referee could literally throw a flag on almost every play in a football game and be justified in doing so. 

I get all that. I am not saying 'blow up the rules' and just do what 'feels right'. I am saying there's a perception of undue complexity so why not try to address that to the extent possible without changing the 'essence' of the game and its inherent challenge.

Personally I don't think it's important to what golf is fundamentally about to know that you can hit a moving ball if it's in a stream vs. the general prohibition.

Lots of posters in these 'suggested changes' threads seem to convey the attitude of 'the rules are fine, shut up with yer bitchin and moanin'. That seems to be a bit of head in the sand kind of response when clearly things like the treatment of 'animal burrows' could be updated to be simpler, clearer, and more universal to worldwide ecologies (why is an ant not an 'animal' under the ROG) when it is in 'science', do giant termite mounds need a local rule when they clearly fit under the spirit of the animal burrow rule...etc?

As far as the 'perception' / golf's image in the general public and prospective new players being real or not, surely the USGA can afford some sophisticated market surveys and focus groups with the uninitiated and somewhat initiated to see where the real fault lines lie - if any.

Edited November 24, 2016 by natureboy

[Rulesman]

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

As far as the 'perception' / golf's image in the general public and prospective new players being real or not, surely the USGA can afford some sophisticated market surveys and focus groups with the uninitiated and somewhat initiated to see where the real fault lines lie - if any.

England Golf did just that a couple of years ago.

Rules did not rate highly as a deterrent.

[turtleback]

10 hours ago, natureboy said:

There are those who go 'all in' with an initial undertaking including joining the USGA before the frustration really sets in. How many people join this forum when they are gung-ho and subsequently leave here and the game?

I did not come into golf through family. So there was no piecemeal introduction to the rules. The USGA rules book was my first introduction other than what I saw on tv. I read quite a bit, but then put it aside as tediously structured, and too time-consuming. I relied more on online overviews. 

..

So for this minuscule number of people, of whom you apparently are one, (and possibly the only one, as I have never heard of anyone who took up golf but then was scared off by the rules) we are supposed to change the rules for the millions for people who already play the game?  Why in the world would we do that?

Contrary to your personal experience the rules are not any kind of impediment to someone wanting to take up the game.  Most people taking up the game do not find it difficult to learn the small set of rules that cover 99% of the situations.  And those who do end up becoming more serious can easily fill in the other 0.75% of the rules needed in more unusual situations.  And the last 0.25% of the rules is why we have rules mavens and rules committees, and USGA and R&A Decisions.  It is not rocket science and golfers have been dealing with it for, literally, centuries.  It is not broke and the attempts to "fix" it are wildly misplaced energy, IMO.