SimpleGolfRules.com - Thoughts?

[newtogolf]

11 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

Here's what I don't understand about those who claim the rules of golf are too complex and difficult;

• Most casual golfers don't know the rules of golf, they likely never read them and know the rules they do because a fellow golfer told them or they saw it on television.
• Most people that claim to know the RoG, don't play by the official RoG, they pick and choose which ones make sense to enforce.  I've never seen someone call a penalty on themselves because the ball moved a micron on the green after address or when removing loose impediments from around the ball.  Most don't hit provisionals when their ball might be lost or OB and they almost never go back to the tee, instead they drop a ball (usually in a favorable place) and play on
• The actual RoG are not practical to enforce on a public course and still adhere to pace of play.

Why go through the effort of changing the official rules when courses have the ability to create local rules and most golfers are quite content to "modify" the rules to suit their needs?  

Tufts was an enlightening read because I now appreciate how the rules have to cover so many different course types and unique situations that it's difficult, if not impossible to anticipate every unique situation and therefore a generic rule that properly covers 95% of those situations is better.  

That said, the rules aren't perfect.  I don't like how the rules were enforced at the US Open for both the PGA and LPGA.  I also don't agree with every rule in the NFL either so I guess that's life.  

[natureboy]

On 11/24/2016 at 2:40 AM, Rulesman said:

England Golf did just that a couple of years ago.

Rules did not rate highly as a deterrent.

That's interesting. Do you have a link? I'm wondering if they were interviewing existing or 'potential' golfers.

The same thing might turn up in U.S. surveys too, but I'd still want to go through the motions as things like our 'pissy beer', etc.  might create a different mindset here.

[natureboy]

On 11/24/2016 at 10:07 AM, turtleback said:

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)... 

Contrary to your personal experience the rules are not any kind of impediment to someone wanting to take up the game.

That does seem like the old 'everything's fine so why bother' response. I expect you don't respect the folks on the Golf Channel anyway, but the fact that they as industry insiders have done segments on 'relaxed rules' says something to me.

I guess you made some assumptions instead of reading what I wrote, because that's a straw-man argument. I said that as a new golfer I started started reading the rulebook that came with my USGA membership and was put off from further reading. I was not put off playing or enjoying myself.

I do think it created a disinclination to submit scores for an official HCP, though I was entitled, because you are only supposed to submit scores played under the ROG and then I was back to my disinterest to know the rulebook back and forward. Some people get excited by that complexity / detail and to me it was off-putting. I just wanted to go out and work on a swing and play the course a bit using what I understood as the core essential rules.

---

@newtogolf, was there anything in the below that you liked as a change or an approach?

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOnePrincipalChanges.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoPrincipalChanges.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOneIntro.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/introduction/

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

On 11/24/2016 at 2:40 AM, Rulesman said:

England Golf did just that a couple of years ago.

Rules did not rate highly as a deterrent.

You may have been referencing another survey, but the questionnaire report I found was of existing club members (people who've already decided to get serious about golf). It did not actually address rules or even perceptions about the game. One of the responses they included from the open-ended comments questions they asked was interesting. The comment about HCP system is likely much less applicable in the U.S., though.

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by natureboy

[newtogolf]

16 hours ago, natureboy said:

 

@newtogolf, was there anything in the below that you liked as a change or an approach?

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOnePrincipalChanges.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwoPrincipalChanges.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeOne/?showfile=CodeOneIntro.html

http://simplegolfrules.com/introduction/

 

I think the RoG are a convenient scapegoat but I don't see them as a real issue as to why people don't play golf so therefore I don't see any basis for wanting to simplify the rules.  

Again, almost every member in the clubs I've been a member of posts their scores for handicap and almost none of them follow the Rules of Golf explicitly.  The result is a large portion of the clubs members are vanity cappers but it only becomes a real issue when a vanity capper goes up against someone that plays consistently following the rules (which are usually incorrectly called "sandbaggers") in a tournament, otherwise everyone is happy.  

Creating another set of rules (even simplified) does not ensure people follow them or that more people will golf or post scores for handicap.  Based on those I speak to, amateur golfers prefer the illusion of playing by the same rules the pro's do and are against bifurcation of the rules.  

Golfers like to tout lower scores than they actually in accordance with the rules shoot and the ability to hit longer distances than they actually hit, that's the nature of non-competitive amateur golf.    

 

[Rulesman]

11 hours ago, natureboy said:

You may have been referencing another survey,

 

I'm afraid that wasn't it. I'll see if I can track it down.

http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=1428&search=

Select England Golf Membership Survey 2015 and see page 65

Edited November 28, 2016 by Rulesman

[Fourputt]

21 hours ago, natureboy said:

That does seem like the old 'everything's fine so why bother' response. I expect you don't respect the folks on the Golf Channel anyway, but the fact that they as industry insiders have done segments on 'relaxed rules' says something to me.

I guess you made some assumptions instead of reading what I wrote, because that's a straw-man argument. I said that as a new golfer I started started reading the rulebook that came with my USGA membership and was put off from further reading. I was not put off playing or enjoying myself.

I do think it created a disinclination to submit scores for an official HCP, though I was entitled, because you are only supposed to submit scores played under the ROG and then I was back to my disinterest to know the rulebook back and forward. Some people get excited by that complexity / detail and to me it was off-putting. I just wanted to go out and work on a swing and play the course a bit using what I understood as the core essential rules.

 

 

 

First, I don't know how "inside" GC is.  I think that you (and they) have a higher opinion of that that I do.  Using the rules as an excuse for declining play in golf is just a scapegoat.  The real reason for it is simple economics, and trying to blame it on the rules is simply reaching for straws that don't actually exist.  You seem to have to argue every little point that comes up, yet you can't seem to see the simple logic that's right in front of you.  

Fear of the rules does NOT drive people from the game, nor is it an impediment for taking up the game.  Even the most casual players I talk to are generally interested and appreciative when I give them the "book" answers to their rules questions.  They have NEVER said "Oh, that sounds too complex - I think I'll quit golf and take up Tiddly Winks."

[Buckeyebowman]

On 11/22/2016 at 7:54 PM, 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.

This is a valid point. I'm all for a simplification of the rules, yet, from what I've read so far, this doesn't seem to be it. Oops, have to get out the door. Will have more when I get back.

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I think the RoG are a convenient scapegoat but I don't see them as a real issue as to why people don't play golf so therefore I don't see any basis for wanting to simplify the rules.

Creating another set of rules (even simplified) does not ensure people follow them or that more people will golf or post scores for handicap.  Based on those I speak to, amateur golfers prefer the illusion of playing by the same rules the pro's do and are against bifurcation of the rules.

I'm not 'blaming the rules'. I'm just saying the game itself is hard enough. Why not attempt to make the rules a bit more coherent / internally consistent while not changing the character of the game?

Isn't a fix to address the fact that an ant is a burrowing animal (as understood in plain language), but their burrows are considered loose impediments and therefore not covered under burrowing animal (creating a complicating exception to those not steeped in the rules + Bubba Watson), while local rules are used to deal with fairly common worldwide exceptions (complexity). Relief might be allowed under 'safety' if fire ants, but what if it's a very large mound with no hazardous ants present? Isn't that a burrow? Termite mounds as burrowing animal then why not ants? Now I know these specific situations are covered by rulings and local rules, but wouldn't it increase coherence and general comprehension of the rules if elements like this were just cleaned up a bit? 

4 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Ignore link above. Try this.

Edit: This wasn't the one I was thinking about but go here

http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=1428&search=

Select England Golf Membership Survey 2015 and see page 65

I don't think it really supports your claimed point from the earlier post. The audience surveyed are paying members of clubs who have plunked down membership fees to play the game. They are already serious about golf. Real market research looks both at your loyal customers as well as those you might hope to convert into future customers.

Even with the 'insider's' perspective, the 'elitist' term appears in two of the top responses from these dues paying club members. The public perception of the rules might contribute to the application of that label. I don't fully know, but if I was a golf governing body interested in the growth of the game, I'd at least want some good data on what people outside or on the margins of the sport think.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

First, I don't know how "inside" GC is.  I think that you (and they) have a higher opinion of that that I do.  Using the rules as an excuse for declining play in golf is just a scapegoat.

Fear of the rules does NOT drive people from the game, nor is it an impediment for taking up the game.  Even the most casual players I talk to are generally interested and appreciative when I give them the "book" answers to their rules questions.  They have NEVER said "Oh, that sounds too complex - I think I'll quit golf and take up Tiddly Winks."

I would say that GC being a conduit for people who watch but maybe don't play a lot of golf may have more insight than folks who are already a golf club member (i.e. serious golfer). They may have actually done some 'opinion research' due to their natural desire to try to increase viewership.

I think the difficulty of the game itself and the time involved (time ~ money) is the primary reason why people leave. That said, those casual players asked you, the experienced golfer, to make it simple for them rather than looking in the book themselves, yes?

I'm really struck by how few constructive critiques of the OP rules there were vs. arguing that 'no one finds the rules off-putting' when there is really no publicly available data supporting either position that I'm aware of. Personally I suspect it's somewhere in-between (among non-serious golfers) along the lines of my experience.

Were you able to find one thing in either code that you liked and could get behind?

Edited November 29, 2016 by natureboy

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm not 'blaming the rules'. I'm just saying the game itself is hard enough. Why not attempt to make the rules a bit more coherent / internally consistent while not changing the character of the game?

Isn't a fix to address the fact that an ant is a burrowing animal (as understood in plain language), but their burrows are considered loose impediments and therefore not covered under burrowing animal (creating a complicating exception to those not steeped in the rules + Bubba Watson), while local rules are used to deal with fairly common worldwide exceptions (complexity). Relief might be allowed under 'safety' if fire ants, but what if it's a very large mound with no hazardous ants present? Isn't that a burrow? Termite mounds as burrowing animal then why not ants? Now I know these specific situations are covered by rulings and local rules, but wouldn't it increase coherence and general comprehension of the rules if elements like this were just cleaned up a bit? 

I don't think it really supports your claimed point from the earlier post. The audience surveyed are paying members of clubs who have plunked down membership fees to play the game. They are already serious about golf. Real market research looks both at your loyal customers as well as those you might hope to convert into future customers.

Even with the 'insider's' perspective, the 'elitist' term appears in two of the top responses from these dues paying club members. The public perception of the rules might contribute to the application of that label. I don't fully know, but if I was a golf governing body interested in the growth of the game, I'd at least want some good data on what people outside or on the margins of the sport think.

I would say that GC being a conduit for people who watch but maybe don't play a lot of golf may have more insight than folks who are already a golf club member (i.e. serious golfer). They may have actually done some 'opinion research' due to their natural desire to try to increase viewership.

I think the difficulty of the game itself and the time involved (time ~ money) is the primary reason why people leave. That said, those casual players asked you, the experienced golfer, to make it simple for them rather than looking in the book themselves, yes?

I'm really struck by how few constructive critiques of the OP rules there were vs. arguing that 'no one finds the rules off-putting' when there is really no publicly available data supporting either position that I'm aware of. Personally I suspect it's somewhere in-between (among non-serious golfers) along the lines of my experience.

Were you able to find one thing in either code that you liked and could get behind?

My point is that most members in golf clubs aren't worrying about the rules at the level of "Is this a termite mound or ant hill", they aren't getting caught up in the rules minutia that the pro's have to deal with.   I'm very serious about golf and do my best to play by the rules but I'm not dealing with these obscure rules references you're throwing out there.

I don't interpret "elitist" to have any reference to rules or rules enforcement, that is an assumption you're making.  The only one that I see being rules related is "Simplify Handicap System - 4%".  Again, people that are just getting started in golf are worried about getting the ball in the air and eventually into the hole, not the rules, termites or ants.  

[natureboy]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I don't interpret "elitist" to have any reference to rules or rules enforcement, that is an assumption you're making. 

It's not an assumption, it's a question. I have a suspicion that the legalistic code presentation contributes, but I'd defer to a serious, professional attempt to gauge opinion among serious, casual, former, & current non-golfers who know of the game and may have thought about playing.

You've never had to deal with an ant-hill during a round? Do you play municipal courses?

Edited November 29, 2016 by natureboy

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

It's not an assumption, it's a question. I have a suspicion that the legalistic code presentation contributes, but I'd defer to a serious, professional attempt to gauge opinion among serious, casual, former, & current non-golfers who know of the game and may have thought about playing.

You've never had to deal with an ant-hill during a round? Do you play municipal courses?

So, you'd defer to your idea of a "serious" professional over a serious amateur?  I've known quite a few serious pros who didn't have my knowledge of the rules or my time and experience in the game.  Yet all you do is argue with us, since all we have to offer is combined decades of experience.  Since I don't have the credentials you require, my 40 years worth of anecdotal experiences don't count as valid points.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

I'm not 'blaming the rules'. I'm just saying the game itself is hard enough. Why not attempt to make the rules a bit more coherent / internally consistent while not changing the character of the game?

(snip)

I would say that GC being a conduit for people who watch but maybe don't play a lot of golf may have more insight than folks who are already a golf club member (i.e. serious golfer). They may have actually done some 'opinion research' due to their natural desire to try to increase viewership.

I think the difficulty of the game itself and the time involved (time ~ money) is the primary reason why people leave. That said, those casual players asked you, the experienced golfer, to make it simple for them rather than looking in the book themselves, yes?

I'm really struck by how few constructive critiques of the OP rules there were vs. arguing that 'no one finds the rules off-putting' when there is really no publicly available data supporting either position that I'm aware of. Personally I suspect it's somewhere in-between (among non-serious golfers) along the lines of my experience.

Were you able to find one thing in either code that you liked and could get behind?

Since the physical game is so hard, the rules rarely even come in to the equation until the player has surmounted the toughest hurdles.  By then, he has at least a vague understanding of the most basic rules, and has that foundation to build on when starting to apply more well defined procedures to his game.  

When I explain to a 2nd or 3rd year player who is just taking his first interest in competition why he can't drop where he intended, he "gets" it.  It doesn't turn him away from the game.  He thanks me for my help, and he is quite likely to seek me out the next time if he hasn't gotten an acceptable answer to another question.  I don't see this as having anything to do with any decline in play.

Guys who I know that have backed off from the game did so because of family obligations which curtail the time they have available for golf, and/or for financial considerations.  Once in a long while a friend will quit out of frustration with his game, but that is usually temporary.  No one I know has ever quit because of the rules.

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

It's not an assumption, it's a question. I have a suspicion that the legalistic code presentation contributes, but I'd defer to a serious, professional attempt to gauge opinion among serious, casual, former, & current non-golfers who know of the game and may have thought about playing.

You've never had to deal with an ant-hill during a round? Do you play municipal courses?

I've never heard "elitist" as a reference to someone who plays by the rules.  Elitist sport I believe refers to the stereotype of it being a game wealthy people play because it's wrongly assumed to be too expensive to play.  

The reference to elite players is in contrast to regular golfers which isn't about the rules but the level of their play.  This is likely in reference to lengthening courses and making them more difficult to play so they attract pro or high level amateur tournaments.  

Nothing in the entire list beside the handicap simplification leads me to believe rules are a problem.  

As for ant hills, if there was an ant hill under my ball I didn't notice.  I mostly play on private courses but I do play public courses once a week and in the last 3 years it's never come up.  

[iacas]

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I don't interpret "elitist" to have any reference to rules or rules enforcement, that is an assumption you're making.  The only one that I see being rules related is "Simplify Handicap System - 4%".  Again, people that are just getting started in golf are worried about getting the ball in the air and eventually into the hole, not the rules, termites or ants.  

I agree with this.

The NFL has rules. The NBA has rules. The NHL, the MLB… the MLS… are they all elitist? Because they have rules?

[Rulesman]

Chess and Snakes & Ladders have rules. Which is elitist?

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Chess and Snakes & Ladders have rules. Which is elitist?

Obviously Snakes & Ladders! 

[RussUK]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Chess and Snakes & Ladders have rules. Which is elitist?

Neither

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cuba-chess-game-masses-145412376.html

Chess in cuba is played by people of all classes. This is just an example. I wouldnt say any board game is elitist, especially if it readily accesible to the rich and poor (for want of a better word).

 

[iacas]

53 minutes ago, RussUK said:

Neither

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cuba-chess-game-masses-145412376.html

Chess in cuba is played by people of all classes. This is just an example. I wouldnt say any board game is elitist, especially if it readily accesible to the rich and poor (for want of a better word).

You may have missed the point. I think he was being facetious. I think.