New Rules for Video Call-Ins

[Groucho Valentine]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah… except nobody's said anything like that.

Yeah yeah yeah. But thats what you're implying. And only you can stop them! 

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Yeah yeah yeah. But thats what you're implying. And only you can stop them! 

Nope. Try again.

[Groucho Valentine]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nope. Try again.

Alright. Maybe later though. 

[Hardluckster]

2 hours ago, arab_joe said:

Of course I understand that Lexi broke two rules in misplacing (or moving, or however you wish to describe it) one marker on one hole, once and signing her card as if she had not (or perhaps even thinking that she had not).  It is clear that under the rules of golf, it is deemed to be two actions.  However, my understanding of this thread is that it is for forum users to debate what they believe the rules "should" be.  I don't agree with the characterisation as two actions - as I alluded to before I believe that it is an unnecessary second layer of penalty for a single act. 

I'm clearly not alone in this, or else there would have been no "uproar" when Lexi was penalised like she was...

First of all, I have never accused Lexi of cheating.  Nobody but Lexi knows what her thought process was at the time of this incident.  Without obvious proof of willful cheating, I would never accuse any player of it.  I must assume that Lexi was just very careless in marking her golf ball.

That said, let's assume hypothetically that Lexi knew exactly what she was doing.  Let's assume that there was a spike mark or other imperfection in her line of putt.  Let's assume, again hypothetically, that she marked the ball incorrectly so as to avoid having to putt over the imperfection.  Do you think that in this hypothetical situation that the 4 strokes be an appropriate penalty?

You see, that is the problem that I have with reducing the scorecard penalty.  We cannot know what Lexi knew.  We can only know that she replaced her ball incorrectly (a 2 stroke penalty) and that she then signed for a score which wasn't correct because she didn't apply the correct penalty (another 2 strokes).  That penalty will seem harsh to some if her actions were simply carelessness.  I would submit that the penalty is very lenient, however, if her actions were more devious than careless.  By abolishing the extra penalty for scorecard signing, the ruling bodies will eliminate any additional incentive for players to get it right the first time, to be accountable for their actions - whether intentional or not.

The rules, I think, should attempt to adequately balance the good and the bad while protecting all of the players who are abiding by the rules.  I feel that the new scorecard rule only attempts to protect those that accidentally break rules.  It promotes ignorance of the rules and carelessness.  I see it as a step backward.  Absent the ability to know peoples' thoughts, there must be penalties for any action that seeks to circumvent the rules, even if careless players are sometimes penalized in what might seem to some to be a harsh manner.

It would all be so much easier if we could simply read other peoples' minds.

[GolfLug]

3 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Apparently golf is a deeply honorable game 

Yeah, honor required to self officiate, no?

3 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

inherently dishonest people just waiting for any chance they get to lie cheat and steal.  

Many are, yes. And many are lazy or careless enough inherently to not bother if not forced to. The honest ones (most) that do the best to follow rules wouldn't worry anyway. 

3 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

(Since 2010) Only noble viewers and spectators, who have no accountability to anyone and are not officially involved the events in any way, can stop the golf from becoming a wretched hive of villainy! 

Yeah, I don't know how golf made it through before 2010 either..  

But then after that it did become part of golf's fabric and was one channel of many. Now there is one less. I may not be feeling the level of melancholy of this as some are for sure and certainly the world is not coming to an end but even you can't deny this changes some things fundamentally.

I also think that this is not an attempt to invite dishonesty or ignorance at all. But it does by implication. Professional golf is also serious entertainment and feeds many mouths so a popular move like this can be understood.    

Edited December 21, 2017 by GolfLug

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, Hardluckster said:

..... Without obvious proof of willful cheating, I would never accuse any player of it.  I must assume that (various players) was just very careless in (generic misapplication of some rule)

.

That penalty will seem harsh to some if her actions were simply carelessness.  I would submit that the penalty is very lenient, however, if her actions were more devious than careless.  By abolishing the extra penalty for scorecard signing, the ruling bodies will eliminate any additional incentive for players to get it right the first time, to be accountable for their actions - whether intentional or not.

.

It would all be so much easier if we could simply read other peoples' minds.

Everything about your post pretty much mirrors my thoughts.  Thanks for getting it down clean where I can think about it objectively without all the clutter of the name callers.

1 - giving the benefit of the doubt is about all we can do - anything other than that muddies the discussion

2 - if an "oversight" is on purpose, then extra strokes is insufficient - a DQ is warranted, and then some.  But we can't read minds.  that darn 'intent' thing again.

3 - if an oversight is accidental, then 'something' needs to be in place to encourage players to learn the rules better.  It was the additional penalty whether perfect or not..  Now it's gone....leaving a gap in process then.....

since we can't read minds - #3 is the only reasonable thing in play for this.   In my mind, eliminating the scorecard penalty, ---without putting something else in it's place----, is a mistake.  If someone demonstrates lack of knowledge, especially if that can affect getting a score correct, then something needs to be put in play.  (financial penalties, required training, lose a slot on a later tournament,  If was just the rich PGA Tour card pros - ideas are easy) - I just don't know what.  Especially if they have to be applied for more than just the pros....especially if the pros will have to sign up for it before it's implemented......particularly for local events for players that don't do it for a living....it has to be timely, and has to work for anyone in competition.

the more I try to think of an alternative for all, the more I start to accept that the original rule, flaws and all, covers the situation about as best one can hope (with the exception of rules official scrutinizing every stroke real time - which is not feasible at all levels) - maybe someone clever will figure out an improvement....I'm out of ideas (other than the obvious)

Edited December 21, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

the more I try to think of an alternative for all, the more I start to accept that the original rule, flaws and all, covers the situation about as best one can hope

Yeah… remember, until 2016, that "original rule" was a straight up DQ. So for two years, we had softened conditions from a DQ to two strokes… and now in 2018 even THAT is gone.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2012.html

[Golfingdad]

21 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

then 'something' needs to be in place to encourage players to learn the rules better.

This sentiment has been repeated many times throughout this discussion and I just don't understand why.  My first thought each time I've read it is that none of the examples that lead to this rule change and that we keep referencing came about because a player didn't know the rules.  They came about because they weren't aware at the time that they violated the rules.  That is a very important distinction.

I also agree with @Groucho Valentine in the sense that saying a slightly lower penalty encourages people to "not know the rules" is absolutely an implication that the players are less than totally honest.  It also implies that there are people who were unwilling to cheat when the penalty was 4 strokes because that was too risky, but that 2 strokes is beneath the line they're willing to cross.  I disagree with that as well.  I don't think dishonesty in golf is on a sliding scale.

[rehmwa]

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah… remember, until 2016, that "original rule" was a straight up DQ. So for two years, we had softened conditions from a DQ to two strokes… and now in 2018 even THAT is gone.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2012.html

I don't think that's so bad.  A DQ was more likely to stop intentional cheating.  Hardluckster made the case nicely (IMO) .  With today's ability to review, and video, and etc etc, the discussion on changing the intent of the rule from "Cheater cheater pumpkin eater"  to 'hey, you missed something, no one caught it in time, so own it and do better next time' is likely more appropriate, especially in a game of 'honor'.....

as I said, since they are now taking the penalty out of the tournament it occurred in, what can be done to address it outside that tournament.  (agree or not) - just for discussion sake.  Of course adding something back in is the easy answer - what else?

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This sentiment has been repeated many times throughout this discussion and I just don't understand why.  My first thought each time I've read it is that none of the examples that lead to this rule change and that we keep referencing came about because a player didn't know the rules.  They came about because they weren't aware at the time that they violated the rules.  That is a very important distinction.

I also agree with @Groucho Valentine in the sense that saying a slightly lower penalty encourages people to "not know the rules" is absolutely an implication that the players are less than totally honest.  It also implies that there are people who were unwilling to cheat when the penalty was 4 strokes because that was too risky, but that 2 strokes is beneath the line they're willing to cross.  I disagree with that as well.  I don't think dishonesty in golf is on a sliding scale.

Yeah = I don't think I've discarded that notion.  as noted, give the player the benefit of the doubt, and then put something in play that still meets the intent of "encourage' them to be on the ball for this stuff too if they find out they messed up.  any thoughts?  other than the older penalties, or just the fact that finding out they misssed something makes them ashamed about it?  If it's not additional penalty during a round, then why wouldn't they choose to take a refresher or pay a fine then.  Not a punishment, but education.

 

((the only reason I'm discouraging just reinstating old penalties or leaving it alone as it, is because we've beaten those concepts to death and I'm looking for new discussions rather than rehashes - though clearly I've slid over towards the 'they went too far' camp now))

I personally don't have a dog in the fight - I just like musing on stuff with friends.  I don't compete, and watching a tournament is just entertainment for me.  I hardly play real golf, I more play 'hit ball, drink bloody marys, drive cart' than anything.

Edited December 21, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I don't think that's so bad.

I didn't say it was bad. A DQ is pretty harsh and seemed to assume intentional cheating. I was okay with two strokes in the case where someone didn't intentionally cheat.

(Tiger, btw, I'd have voted to DQ. He knew what he was doing there. He didn't accidentally drop a little further from an acceptable spot than he should have, he did so intentionally.)

I'm not really all that interested in discussing alternatives. The two strokes is what I think should stay in, regardless of "intent" (unless it rises to the level of a straight out DQ) or lack of knowledge.

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This sentiment has been repeated many times throughout this discussion and I just don't understand why.  My first thought each time I've read it is that none of the examples that lead to this rule change and that we keep referencing came about because a player didn't know the rules.  They came about because they weren't aware at the time that they violated the rules.  That is a very important distinction.

The rule doesn't cover only those situations. It is simply "incorrect scorecard." The rule covers all situations wherein a player returns a scorecard that's incorrect, for whatever reason.

2015:
- Lower than you shot for any reason at all? DQ
2016-17:
- Lower than you shot, with your knowledge or intent? DQ
- Lower than you shot because you unknowingly broke a rule? Original penalty plus 2 strokes for not owning up to your responsibility to know and follow the Rules.
2018-?:
- Lower than you shot, with your knowledge or intent? DQ
- Lower than you shot, because you say you unknowingly broke a rule? Original penalty only.

Of course, those are only if you're caught.

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I also agree with @Groucho Valentine in the sense that saying a slightly lower penalty encourages people to "not know the rules"

It's not a "slightly lower penalty." It's a removal of any additional penalty.

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I also agree with @Groucho Valentine in the sense that saying a slightly lower penalty encourages people to "not know the rules" is absolutely an implication that the players are less than totally honest.

No, you've read that incorrectly.

If a player doesn't know the rules, they can honestly say "I didn't know that was a breach of the rules." They're protected. They can't be DQed and now they can't be penalized.

If a player knows the rules, they can't honestly say "I didn't know that was a breach of the rules." They're facing a DQ if they're honest.

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It also implies that there are people who were unwilling to cheat when the penalty was 4 strokes because that was too risky, but that 2 strokes is beneath the line they're willing to cross.

That's not really correct either. The additional two strokes helps to ensure that people make an earnest effort to put down the right score. It's an incentive to not try to get away with something, either willfully or through ignorance.

Let's say you're playing a shot, and your playing partner is across the fairway, and your caddie is in the port-a-potty or something… you do something that may be a penalty. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume it is one.

Under the old rules, you were incentivized to find out if that was a penalty because you not only stood to be penalized for what you did (a matter of fact), but for putting down an incorrect scorecard - a second breach of another rule.

Now, what's the incentive to even find out? Even if someone else sees it and the PGA Tour come to you two days later to ask about it, plead dumb and worst case you get the two strokes you were due. Best case you get away with it because nobody saw it.

In both cases the player incurred the initial penalty when they committed the breach. The additional two strokes - Lexi would have won with just half of that additional penalty - can be costly. It was an incentive to get the damn score right, even if you didn't intentionally "cheat."

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I disagree with that as well.  I don't think dishonesty in golf is on a sliding scale.

The new lack of any penalty so long as you can honestly say "I didn't know that was a rule" incentivizes lack of knowledge of the Rules of Golf.

Again, a kid drops from a stream and writes down a 4 instead of a 5. He honestly doesn't know that that's a rule, maybe he saw a buddy dropping free from casual water once. What's his incentive to know that? If he's caught, he writes down a 5: his actual score. If he's not caught, he gets a "4."

Before 2016, his incentive to know the rules was that he'd be DQed. From 2016-17, his incentive to know was that he'd have to take a 7 on that hole with the additional two-strokes. In 2018? He's incentivized to honestly be able to say "I didn't know that was a rule!"

[Phil McGleno]

@Golfingdad-You are telling me that signing an incorrect scorecard with a score lower than the one you actually got is the same as playing out of turn in stroke play?

No penalty for either one-Even though a player is supposed to follow the rules and officiate the game for themselves. Golf is not an officiated sport-It is a self-officiated sport.

If you think every golfer ever is truthful and honest-You have not played golf with very many people and you live in a bubble.

I was DQed from a tournament back in the day for breaking a rule I did not know was a rule.-You know what I thought after? I failed golf. I failed to uphold my end of the bargain.-I did not honor my responsibility. The DQ was what I deserved.

Now-Players deserve nothing for failing to uphold their responsibility?-Hogwash.

[Golfingdad]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

Now, what's the incentive to even find out? Even if someone else sees it and the PGA Tour come to you two days later to ask about it, plead dumb and worst case you get the two strokes you were due. Best case you get away with it because nobody saw it.

This is the crux of what I'm getting at.  The person who succumbs to this "incentive" you are referring to is being dishonest already ... and I contend that since they're banking on the fact that they're more likely to get away with it than not, thus the extra 2 strokes is not more incentive to ask anybody.

 

41 minutes ago, iacas said:

Let's say you're playing a shot, and your playing partner is across the fairway, and your caddie is in the port-a-potty or something… you do something that may be a penalty. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume it is one.

Under the old rules, you were incentivized to find out if that was a penalty because you not only stood to be penalized for what you did (a matter of fact), but for putting down an incorrect scorecard - a second breach of another rule.

Now, what's the incentive to even find out?

In your example, he obviously knows something isn't right because you're implying that he knows he should ask somebody about it, and that with the extra 2-stroke penalty he would ask about it.  This hypothetical player is being dishonest.

As it already was with DQ, and as it currently is with the 2-stroke penalty, and as it will continue to be with no penalty, the incentive to find out is a sense of honestly and integrity and of wanting to play fairly and by the rules.

And @Phil McGleno, I never said anything of the sort so I don't know why you'd even ask that question.  In fact, I'm not even technically "for" this rule change.  I do think that, if anything, we'll see only positives come from it in the sense that debacles like we saw with DJ and Anna Norqvist will be curbed, but I don't feel that strongly one way or the other.  Mostly, I just think that there are strong counter arguments to the ones I'm reading and so I'm making them.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

This sentiment has been repeated many times throughout this discussion and I just don't understand why.  My first thought each time I've read it is that none of the examples that lead to this rule change and that we keep referencing came about because a player didn't know the rules.  They came about because they weren't aware at the time that they violated the rules.  That is a very important distinction.

I also agree with @Groucho Valentine in the sense that saying a slightly lower penalty encourages people to "not know the rules" is absolutely an implication that the players are less than totally honest.  It also implies that there are people who were unwilling to cheat when the penalty was 4 strokes because that was too risky, but that 2 strokes is beneath the line they're willing to cross.  I disagree with that as well.  I don't think dishonesty in golf is on a sliding scale.

No, it does not imply deliberate dishonesty.  I implies that they can cover their butts through deliberate ignorance.  Since such ignorance seems fairly rampant already, it's not really that big a step - this new local rule just lets them get away with it.  Rather than risk making an honest mistake through a misconception (like Tiger at Augusta), they can simply make no effort to understand the rule and get away with making that "honest" mistake. 

Makes me wonder... Will the fundamental requirement for a player knowing and correctly applying the rules be dropped from the verbiage when the next revision is released?

Edited December 21, 2017 by Fourputt

[Golfingdad]

57 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

No, it does not imply deliberate dishonesty.  I implies that they can cover their butts through deliberate ignorance.

What's the difference?  Playing dumb after having done something that you think might be a rules violation is dishonest.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Again, a kid drops from a stream and writes down a 4 instead of a 5. He honestly doesn't know that that's a rule, maybe he saw a buddy dropping free from casual water once. What's his incentive to know that? If he's caught, he writes down a 5: his actual score. If he's not caught, he gets a "4."

Before 2016, his incentive to know the rules was that he'd be DQed. From 2016-17, his incentive to know was that he'd have to take a 7 on that hole with the additional two-strokes. In 2018? He's incentivized to honestly be able to say "I didn't know that was a rule!"

Why would a kid who doesn't even know the most basic of rules - that there is a penalty associated with dropping from a hazard - know about the scorecard penalties?  And he'd have to know about them to be "incentivized" by them.

And, trying to put myself in the shoes of a kid like this, or more likely, the shoes of a dad of a kid like this, the real incentive in knowing the rules is to avoid the shame and embarrassment of people thinking that you're a cheater.  Nobody ethical wants that stigma and that is far more incentive to learn the rules than is an extra 2 stroke penalty that drops you a couple of more spots in the standings of your junior tournament.

To take that one step further and tie it in with my above point; if you know enough about the rules to know that you can benefit by not knowing the rules, and you choose to not learn them and then "play dumb" when something fishy comes up, then you are being deliberately dishonest.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

The person who succumbs to this "incentive" you are referring to is being dishonest already ... and I contend that since they're banking on the fact that they're more likely to get away with it than not, thus the extra 2 strokes is not more incentive to ask anybody.

First, I'd respond to all of that with what Rick said. But let's assume it's a person who is being dishonest…

You don't see the problem with that? Yeah, if you lie and say "I didn't know that was a rule," then you're dishonest. But now you don't get any additional penalty - you only get the penalty you incurred. Because they can't prove that you knew, you're not DQed.

Ridiculous.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

In your example, he obviously knows something isn't right because you're implying that he knows he should ask somebody about it, and that with the extra 2-stroke penalty he would ask about it.  This hypothetical player is being dishonest.

A) He doesn't "obviously know" anything. I said he does something that may be a penalty; I didn't even say he does something he thinks might be a penalty (i.e. doubt exists). So no, he definitely doesn't "know something isn't right."

B) There's no real penalty for being dishonest now, either, so whoopty doo.

But really, again, my answer to all of that is what @Fourputt said.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

As it already was with DQ, and as it currently is with the 2-stroke penalty, and as it will continue to be with no penalty, the incentive to find out is a sense of honestly and integrity and of wanting to play fairly and by the rules.

Groovy. That's a lousy "incentive," and what's more, that incentive has always been there. They've removed incentives to write the proper score down.

Furthermore, players are actually incentivized to NOT know the rules.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

And @Phil McGleno, I never said anything of the sort so I don't know why you'd even ask that question.  In fact, I'm not even technically "for" this rule change.  I do think that, if anything, we'll see only positives come from it in the sense that debacles like we saw with DJ and Anna Norqvist will be curbed, but I don't feel that strongly one way or the other.  Mostly, I just think that there are strong counter arguments to the ones I'm reading and so I'm making them.

This rule, as I said to you in an iMessage, has nothing to do with DJ or Anna. Plus, both of whom were alerted to the possible infraction(s) during the course of play. Those situations have nothing to do with this recent rules change.

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

No, it does not imply deliberate dishonesty.  I implies that they can cover their butts through deliberate ignorance. 

Bingo. Plus the rest of what Rick typed.

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

What's the difference?  Playing dumb after having done something that you think might be a rules violation is dishonest.

Two things. First, the difference is that the 2018 rule incentivizes people to honestly not know the rules. Then they don't even have to be dishonest. But even if they choose to be dishonest… (#2 here…) there's no additional penalty. So everyone gets a free pass. The only person who doesn't? The honest, knowledgeable person, who likely added the penalty strokes himself.

Let's assume a player commits a breach and is either knowledgeable of it or not, and honest about their knowledge or not. They sign their card with the wrong score (in the Knowledgeable/Honest square, the DQ is highly unlikely as that knowledgeable/honest player probably already included the penalty on the card):

	Knowledgeable	Ignorant
Honest	Original Penalty or DQ	Freebie or Original Penalty
Dishonest	Freebie or Original Penalty	Freebie or Original Penalty

Since the worst thing that can happen is the original penalty, what's the incentive to report the score honestly and knowledgeably? What's the incentive to know the rules? If you're a tournament player who is feeding your family by playing golf, and you're also super honest, it's smart to actually not know the rules at all, and then you can be both honest and ignorant: you'll get a free pass if nobody catches you, and only the original penalty if someone does. And you can honestly say "Nope, didn't know that was a rule."

But yeah, as you're assuming (incorrectly), even the dishonest person benefits. Because nobody will be able to say definitively that they "knew" they breached the rule, they can't be DQed, and thus, they get no additional penalty beyond the one they already actually incurred.

So the rule has two problems:

• The dishonest can get out of a DQ and even get away without reporting penalties by saying "I didn't know."
• The honest are incentivized to not know the rules because then they can honestly say "I didn't know."

Players have a responsibility to know and play by the Rules. That responsibility is essentially no longer enforced, and in fact, ignorance is actually being rewarded now.

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Why would a kid who doesn't even know the most basic of rules - that there is a penalty associated with dropping from a hazard - know about the scorecard penalties?  And he'd have to know about them to be "incentivized" by them.

In that example, the kid knows there's a penalty but is lying and getting away with it. Think about it - he already definitely incurred the stroke for the water hazard. He only stands to gain by writing the wrong score down and not including the penalty. If caught, he just says "oh, I didn't know." But there's also a good chance nobody catches him.

So again, the rules change:

• favors the dishonest.
• incentivizes the honest people to legitimately "not know."

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

And, trying to put myself in the shoes of a kid like this, or more likely, the shoes of a dad of a kid like this, the real incentive in knowing the rules is to avoid the shame and embarrassment of people thinking that you're a cheater.

Your kids aren't playing much tournament golf right now Drew. There's no shame or embarrassment. A girl literally erased her scores after she had her scorecard signed by another player. The tournament officials could see the eraser marks. @NatalieB could recount her strokes on each hole (she was in the group but not the girl's marker). They let her erased/changed score stand.

Another kid routinely marks his ball in front and replaces it with the marker behind. Everyone knows it. He just keeps doing it, and nobody says anything, or else they're branded a "tattler" or something.

The stories I could tell… and that's just from a few years of Natalie playing junior golf. And often it's not just the kids, but the parents too, who decide for themselves what they think is "fair," actual Rules of Golf be damned.

Kids are cheating all over the place. Maybe it's a byproduct of the "everyone's a winner" attitude, I don't know. But no, they're not shamed or embarrassed.

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Nobody ethical wants that stigma and that is far more incentive to learn the rules than is an extra 2 stroke penalty that drops you a couple of more spots in the standings of your junior tournament.

Join us here in the real world, Drew. We have peanut butter.

Hideki flat out lied. Justin Thomas thinks its his right to play with a ball "backstopping" him. Lexi Thompson got sympathy, not condemnation, for her act.

People are definitely willing to risk the stigma - particularly when they can basically completely escape it by pleading ignorance - in order to save some strokes.

The balance is even more in their favor now. They can't even be penalized an additional two strokes. Worst case, they just get the penalty they actually incurred… and we just waive the "signed an incorrect scorecard" penalty, basically.

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

To take that one step further and tie it in with my above point; if you know enough about the rules to know that you can benefit by not knowing the rules, and you choose to not learn them and then "play dumb" when something fishy comes up, then you are being deliberately dishonest.

Not necessarily.

Why, as a golf coach, shouldn't I just tell my team "guys, don't ever study the rules. Just know a few basic ones so you don't do something like pick your ball up in the fairway, but don't ever study them in depth. When questioned, honestly plead ignorance."

So no, you don't have to "know enough about the rules to know that you can benefit by not knowing the rules."

It boils down to two things:

• There's no incentive to record the proper score. Worst case, you simply say "I didn't know" and you get the penalty you actually incurred. Best case, you get away with it.
• For those honest people out there, who want to be honest, they're actually better off not knowing the rules, because then the first bullet point still works to their advantage.

[Phil McGleno]

In other words-More than ever before, the honest/knowledgeable golfer is getting hosed. He already writes the correct scores down, but now his dishonest cheating fellow competitors are either getting away with stuff or only getting the penalty they actually got.

No more additional penalty for their dishonesty OR their lack of knowledge.

The honest/knowledgeable golfer is getting screwed @Golfingdad-How do you not see that? He is getting screwed two ways-by the ignorant AND the dishonest.

[iacas]

Just now, Phil McGleno said:

The honest/knowledgeable golfer is getting screwed @Golfingdad-How do you not see that? He is getting screwed two ways-by the ignorant AND the dishonest.

QFT.

Good way of putting it @Phil McGleno. The honest/knowledgeable golfer gets screwed over twice while having no upsides to himself. The dishonest and the ignorant both get the upsides - maybe nobody will notice and they'll save strokes - while their downsides USED to be that they could be punished an extra pair of strokes, but now is exactly the same as the honest/knowledgeable guy.

You're a fairly honest/knowledgeable guy, @Golfingdad. You stand to get only screwed over by this.

---

I'm sure I rambled a bit in the post above, but the points are pretty simple. There's no advantage to being honest/knowledgeable now, and in fact, there are advantages to being the opposite of either/both of those with no added downsides.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Why, as a golf coach, shouldn't I just tell my team "guys, don't ever study the rules. Just know a few basic ones so you don't do something like pick your ball up in the fairway, but don't ever study them in depth. When questioned, honestly plead ignorance."

You tell me.  This doesn't have to be a hypothetical anymore.  You ARE a golf coach and this rule IS going into effect shortly.  So ...

Are you going to instruct your incoming players to not study the rules in depth and when questioned, plead ignorance?