Discussing Rules Changes

[boil3rmak3r]

In reading the Lexi incident with her four stroke penalty, I read a few things that made me want to post this...  It's not relevant to my post, but I am wishy-washy on the additional 2 stroke penalty for an incorrect scorecard...  I lean toward her deserving it because it seemed to be extremely careless.  Then I ask myself, how can you differentiate from carelessness and an intentional act?  I don't think you can, so I think the incorrect scorecard penalty must be in place.

What gets me is when people say the rule should not be changed because it's the rule.  I find, on this site, that some people that pride themselves on being a guru on the rules, don't have much of an open mind in actually considering whether it makes sense to change a rule or not.  Be a stickler on applying the rules today, but don't use that as a reason to not change it..  Tell people why you don't support a rule change, but don't say things like "it's the rule"; or "Its a principle of golf as written by Tufts in 1960 (or whatever it was)".  Heck, it was once posted on this site that you must have read Tufts "The Principles Behind The Rules of Golf" before you could post anything.  Well, as it stands now, it's possible that his "Principles" will be changed a bit.  Spike marks, for example...

Do a search on any major sport and you see major changes.  For example, in MLB, 3 balls did not used to be a walk...  At one point it was 6, then went to 4, then went to 3.  In Football, a "safety" used to require the offensive team to punt from the 25 yard line and the defensive team got no points.  NFL teams used to purposefully get sacked in the end zone so they would punt from a further distance away from their goal line.  I have season tickets for hockey and could give you a ton of changes they have made... 

I guess this is a post to have those of us who love golf and want to debate potential rule changes, to do so without blanket statements like - "That's is against the fundamental of golf"; or "The rule is the rule"; or "I am not sure what game you want to play, but I want to play golf".  Most people give reasons above and beyond "it's a fundamental of golf" and "the rules are the rules".  But for those that simply go back to those arguments, you are not contributing anything to the conversation.

I haven't been much of a contributor to this site lately, so you can ignore what I am saying.  But it really discourages me (and I'll bet others) from trying to have an intelligent discussion on these issues.

 

 

 

[iacas]

I don't think you've accurately characterized anyone with that post. I'm out so this reply for now is very short. I'll have more to add later.

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, boil3rmak3r said:

In reading the Lexi incident with her four stroke penalty, I read a few things that made me want to post this...  It's not relevant to my post, but I am wishy-washy on the additional 2 stroke penalty for an incorrect scorecard...  I lean toward her deserving it because it seemed to be extremely careless.  Then I ask myself, how can you differentiate from carelessness and an intentional act?  I don't think you can, so I think the incorrect scorecard penalty must be in place.

What gets me is when people say the rule should not be changed because it's the rule.  I find, on this site, that some people that pride themselves on being a guru on the rules, don't have much of an open mind in actually considering whether it makes sense to change a rule or not.  Be a stickler on applying the rules today, but don't use that as a reason to not change it..  Tell people why you don't support a rule change, but don't say things like "it's the rule"; or "Its a principle of golf as written by Tufts in 1960 (or whatever it was)".  Heck, it was once posted on this site that you must have read Tufts "The Principles Behind The Rules of Golf" before you could post anything.  Well, as it stands now, it's possible that his "Principles" will be changed a bit.  Spike marks, for example...

Do a search on any major sport and you see major changes.  For example, in MLB, 3 balls did not used to be a walk...  At one point it was 6, then went to 4, then went to 3.  In Football, a "safety" used to require the offensive team to punt from the 25 yard line and the defensive team got no points.  NFL teams used to purposefully get sacked in the end zone so they would punt from a further distance away from their goal line.  I have season tickets for hockey and could give you a ton of changes they have made... 

I guess this is a post to have those of us who love golf and want to debate potential rule changes, to do so without blanket statements like - "That's is against the fundamental of golf"; or "The rule is the rule"; or "I am not sure what game you want to play, but I want to play golf".  Most people give reasons above and beyond "it's a fundamental of golf" and "the rules are the rules".  But for those that simply go back to those arguments, you are not contributing anything to the conversation.

I haven't been much of a contributor to this site lately, so you can ignore what I am saying.  But it really discourages me (and I'll bet others) from trying to have an intelligent discussion on these issues.

 

 

 

I would suggest that most rules 'sticklers' don't object to rule changes per se providing the change is fully thought through and makes sense. The problem is with the people who suggest that 'if you don't like a rule, ignore it and do what you please'.  

I often compare them with children who play snakes & ladders and ignore the snakes because they 'don't like that rule'.

[RandallT]

I enjoy the vehement arguments made on both sides, even though I typically don't chime in myself. I'm still learning, and often it takes the heated debates for me to think about where I stand.

As for the reluctance to accept new rules, my impression here is that most have been open-minded to the new proposals. There's the obvious flagstick putting rule that has seen valid, reasoned objections, but much of the rest has been taken in with an open mind from what I can discern on various threads.

If there are widespread examples of people using the arguments against change that you cite ("hey those are the rules- end of story"), I'd like to think this site is the kind of place that most of us would call BS. You gotta cite a principle of golf or some other valid reason to move the discussion forward- I agree with you there.

Am I off base in getting a different characterization than you? I do get the whiff of what you are saying in some people's posts, but I have still found it to be intelligent discussion for the most part. It doesn't bother me (or discourage me, as you said it does to you)  much if someone puts forth a bad argument either, because I mostly trust that people will figure that out for themselves. 

[Hardspoon]

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

I guess this is a post to have those of us who love golf and want to debate potential rule changes, to do so without blanket statements like - "That's is against the fundamental of golf"; or "The rule is the rule"; or "I am not sure what game you want to play, but I want to play golf".  Most people give reasons above and beyond "it's a fundamental of golf" and "the rules are the rules".  But for those that simply go back to those arguments, you are not contributing anything to the conversation.

Read more  

There are a lot of people who think that the fundamental principles behind the Rules should not change. They evaluate rules changes based on that premise. That is still a contribution, no?

You mention other sports...but your analogy doesn't work. One of the principles of baseball is that the pitcher has to deliver the ball in an area where the batter has a chance to put it in play. Whether you call a "walk" four balls, or six, that principle is unchanged. If you argue that a walk should be 25 balls, I'd tell you that completely changes the way the game is played, and shouldn't be a valid change.

If you don't think that's a valid argument...prove me wrong.  Don't just create a thread where you tell me I can't make that argument.

[Missouri Swede]

23 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

There are a lot of people who think that the fundamental principles behind the Rules should not change. They evaluate rules changes based on that premise. That is still a contribution, no?

You mention other sports...but your analogy doesn't work. One of the principles of baseball is that the pitcher has to deliver the ball in an area where the batter has a chance to put it in play. Whether you call a "walk" four balls, or six, that principle is unchanged. If you argue that a walk should be 25 balls, I'd tell you that completely changes the way the game is played, and shouldn't be a valid change.

If you don't think that's a valid argument...prove me wrong.  Don't just create a thread where you tell me I can't make that argument.

I'm not sure your counter-argument works.  I don't follow MLB, but since @boil3rmak3rbrought up the 3-balls point, I looked it up.  From what I can see, they changed it so an intentional walk (where the pitcher doesn't deliver the ball in an area where the batter has a reasonable chance to put it into play) now doesn't require any pitches at all. (Did I get that correct? http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18737245/mlb-union-agree-get-rid-traditional-intentional-walkwill-use-signal-dugout). So that would be a change in the way a batter doesn't get a chance to hit the ball.  (??!!)

Off topic, but I didn't see anything about a walk now being only 3 balls.  But it's possible I missed something, and I'm sure someone can fill me in. 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

What gets me is when people say the rule should not be changed because it's the rule.

This is my first problem with your post… I don't think this happens. I know people have said that this happens, but I don't think there are many posts at all that can be accurately summarized as "the rules are the rules."

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

I find, on this site, that some people that pride themselves on being a guru on the rules, don't have much of an open mind in actually considering whether it makes sense to change a rule or not.

Name names.

Because I disagree. I can't speak for anyone else, but if you were to put my name on your list… I've supported all but two of the proposed rules changes for 2019. The two I've opposed - the flagstick-in-while-putting and the no-notifying-of-picking-up-for-identification - I've elaborated quite a bit on why I oppose them.

And if there are others on your list… I don't think I've seen many of them opposing the changes, either. @Fourputt is good with most. @Rulesman is, I believe. @Asheville too, I think.

So who are you talking about?

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

Tell people why you don't support a rule change, but don't say things like "it's the rule"; or "Its a principle of golf as written by Tufts in 1960 (or whatever it was)".

I don't think that happens.

To the idea of the principles, I still think it's very important to stay true to those. Change the principles too much and you get too far away from what makes golf "golf" for comfort, IMO.

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

Heck, it was once posted on this site that you must have read Tufts "The Principles Behind The Rules of Golf" before you could post anything.

That's inaccurate. That rule applied to one well-known individual (@MEfree, who wanted to constantly discuss the rules but who wouldn't put in the modest amount of time to learn and understand the book which summarizes the logic and reasoning behind them), who more than deserved such a rule for himself, and it applies for the topic which discusses the "Principles" booklet you named. It doesn't apply to anyone else or any other rules topic, and never has.

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

Well, as it stands now, it's possible that his "Principles" will be changed a bit.  Spike marks, for example...

Spike marks doesn't change the principles any more than repairing ball marks, and I haven't heard anyone here opposing the proposed rule re: spike marks.

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

Do a search on any major sport and you see major changes.  For example, in MLB, 3 balls did not used to be a walk...  At one point it was 6, then went to 4, then went to 3.  In Football, a "safety" used to require the offensive team to punt from the 25 yard line and the defensive team got no points.  NFL teams used to purposefully get sacked in the end zone so they would punt from a further distance away from their goal line.  I have season tickets for hockey and could give you a ton of changes they have made...

I would say that those rules changes don't fundamentally change the principles of the game. When football went from disallowing to allowing the forward pass (which, I'll note, was over 100 years ago), that fundamentally changed the game. The number of balls for a walk doesn't fundamentally change the game. It doesn't affect the principles of the game.

Changing the size of the hole (to make something up) wouldn't fundamentally change the principles of the game of golf, either, even though it could have a dramatic effect on scoring.

3 hours ago, boil3rmak3r said:

I guess this is a post to have those of us who love golf and want to debate potential rule changes, to do so without blanket statements like - "That's is against the fundamental of golf"; or "The rule is the rule"; or "I am not sure what game you want to play, but I want to play golf".

I still don't think these types of comments happen 1/10th as often as your post implies that they happen.

[Hardspoon]

45 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

I'm not sure your counter-argument works.  I don't follow MLB, but since @boil3rmak3rbrought up the 3-balls point, I looked it up.  From what I can see, they changed it so an intentional walk (where the pitcher doesn't deliver the ball in an area where the batter has a reasonable chance to put it into play) now doesn't require any pitches at all. (Did I get that correct? 

My point was simply that rules changes in other sports are implemented in a manner that doesn't change the basic principles of the game. When there are rules changes that do (like the designated hitter), there are a vocal group of fans that vehemently oppose the change. 

Why should golf be any different?

And sure, maybe i mis-stated the principle in question; it's more like "The pitcher must generally deliver the ball where the batter can hit it, or the batter gets first base."...but my basic point remains.

[DaveP043]

I read the original post, and I simply don't agree that there's blind opposition to changing the rules.

I see two basic types of rule threads.  The first is a discussion of an incident or circumstance in the present.  In those cases, the rules truly ARE the rules.  Someone may not like the way the rules work in some cases (I know I've found a few cases where I dislike the results of a ruling), but those thread aren't about changing.  However, sometimes these types of discussions will spark a new thread, much like the original Lexi thread did, about whether a certain rule should be changed, and how could that be done.  

Which brings me to the second type of rule thread, talking about potential changes.  I can't remember anyone saying a rule shouldn't be changed simply because its a rule now.  I do recall posters opposing a suggested changebecause, in their view, its against the underlying principles.  I don't always agree, but I think a potential rule change's relation to the principles is important, and a very valid discussion.  I think Mr. Tufts' book is a very well reasoned explanation of his views, but its not the be-all and end-all.  After all, golf has had rules for over 200 years before he wrote the book, he certainly couldn't know why the original rule makers made their choices.  But he's made a pretty good explanation, one that ties much of the evolution of the rules to some pretty basic principles.  Its well worth paying attention to the principles he's outlined.