USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[rogolf]

Probably should stay out of the discussion and only read to learn - but I have been waiting for someone to raise this question. Since it hasn't been raised (to my knowledge) then I will.

 

How does this discussion fall in line with using binoculars, or a long distance camera lens or even a TV camera to search for a lost ball in a tree (which I believe have all been used) and then after finding a ball also being used to identify the ball as opposed to using some of the technical assistance that has been discussed which is not allowed.

A player may use glasses and binoculars. A spectator may use anything.

 

14-3/3

 

 

Eyeglasses and Binoculars

 

 

Standard eyeglasses and binoculars that have no range-finder attachments are not artificial devices within the meaning of the term in Rule 14-3. However, see also the Note to Rule 14-3.

 

Referees are not limited in the equipment that they are permitted to use - cameras with telescopic lens, TV cameras, distance-measuring devices etc.

[Roadking2003]

The second of Tuft's "two great principles of golf" is that you should "Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole." Of course the Rules stray from this general principal for convenience (you are not required to go home because you dunk one in the lake) but they do what they can to try to stay as true as possible to that principle balancing convenience and propriety against it.

 

Actually, the rules stray from that principle quite often and not just for convenience. Probably more than a dozen times.

 

There are so many exceptions to that principle that I'm not sure it's a valid principle anymore.

See Rule 1-1. It's the embodiment of that principle.

 

But then they go on to list lots of times when violating that principle is OK. Just off the top of my head;

• damaged ball
  
• ground under repair
  
• casual water
  
• anytime you are on the green
  
• embedded ball
  
• relief from obstructions
  
• lift ball if it interferes with another player
  
• pick it up if your opponent gives you the putt
  
• move it off a cart path
  
• relief from sprinkler heads by the green
  
• repair ball marks
  
• relief from new sod cut lines
  
• relief from aeration holes
  

[nsxguy]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, he's back,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :taunt:

 

So, answer the question.

 

It's been explained to you over and over again by multiple people and probably in multiple places as well but you just won't have it.

 

If you think I'm going to get into it again with you here, think again,,,,,,,, :haha:

[Sawgrass]

The second of Tuft's "two great principles of golf" is that you should "Put your ball in play at the start of the hole, play only your own ball and do not touch it until you lift it from the hole." Of course the Rules stray from this general principal for convenience (you are not required to go home because you dunk one in the lake) but they do what they can to try to stay as true as possible to that principle balancing convenience and propriety against it.

 

Actually, the rules stray from that principle quite often and not just for convenience. Probably more than a dozen times.

 

There are so many exceptions to that principle that I'm not sure it's a valid principle anymore.

See Rule 1-1. It's the embodiment of that principle.

 

But then they go on to list lots of times when violating that principle is OK. Just off the top of my head;

• damaged ball
  
• ground under repair
  
• casual water
  
• anytime you are on the green
  
• embedded ball
  
• relief from obstructions
  
• lift ball if it interferes with another player
  
• pick it up if your opponent gives you the putt
  
• move it off a cart path
  
• relief from sprinkler heads by the green
  
• repair ball marks
  
• relief from new sod cut lines
  
• relief from aeration holes
  

Stop trying to add to the list.

[Roadking2003]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, he's back,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :taunt:

 

So, answer the question.

 

It's been explained to you over and over again by multiple people and probably in multiple places as well but you just won't have it.

 

If you think I'm going to get into it again with you here, think again,,,,,,,, :haha:

 

Nice deflection even though it's not true.

 

I'll take it as you don't have an answer.

[North Butte]

Like the old joke about the philosopher and the young women with the punch line, "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling over price" the Rules Of Golf are not remotely about teeing the ball up and not touching it until it is holed out.

 

Once we've established that the Rules are in large part a list of situations where you can put your hands on the ball then it's natural for people to haggle over the exact contents of the list. This guy wants to roll 'em in the fairway, another guy wants drops instead of going back to the tee. It's all haggling over price, nobody seems to be seriously thinking that the Rules are all about playing it down and putting it out.

[davep043]

It's all haggling over price, nobody seems to be seriously thinking that the Rules are all about playing it down and putting it out.

In a large part, I don't disagree with this, but the rules definitely started with the principle of playing each hole from tee to conclusion without touching the ball. I use the word conclusion because originally golf was played as match play, so a conceded putt ended the hole. The "exceptions" to that principle have developed as the game spread to different locations, different soil and grass types, as new technology developed (motorized mowers, irrigation, cart paths, etc.). In my opinion, its not appropriate to discuss new revisions to the rules without considering the original principles. Golf isn't intended to be "fair", its intended to be the same for everyone.

[North Butte]

If it's not meant to be "fair" why give relief for certain types of Ground Under Repair? Even a major championship played at Stroke Play could be equitably contested with no Ground Under Repair rule on the books. Same for many other allowable exceptions to playing it down.

 

Somewhere along the line, someone with the power to implement Rules changes decided a Ground Under Repair definition and relief was desirable. If not for "fairness" then for whatever other reason they might choose to give. There's likewise no reason those in charge of the Rules could not add an allowance for moving the ball out of divots (which BTW I would not be particularly in favor of, but my preferences matter not at all to the Rules-makers) for exactly the same reasons there is Ground Under Repair allowance.

 

It's all arbitrary. Of all the possible exceptions to playing it down, lots of them have made it into the Rules and even more of them have not. Which ones are and which ones aren't is just a matter of who is holding which end of the stick.

[nsxguy]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd, he's back,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :taunt:

 

So, answer the question.

 

It's been explained to you over and over again by multiple people and probably in multiple places as well but you just won't have it.

 

If you think I'm going to get into it again with you here, think again,,,,,,,, :haha:

 

Nice deflection even though it's not true.

 

I'll take it as you don't have an answer.

 

Take it any way you like,,,,,,,,,, pffffft.

[Sawgrass]

Like the old joke about the philosopher and the young women with the punch line, "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling over price" the Rules Of Golf are not remotely about teeing the ball up and not touching it until it is holed out.

 

Once we've established that the Rules are in large part a list of situations where you can put your hands on the ball then it's natural for people to haggle over the exact contents of the list. This guy wants to roll 'em in the fairway, another guy wants drops instead of going back to the tee. It's all haggling over price, nobody seems to be seriously thinking that the Rules are all about playing it down and putting it out.

Of course there are subjective decisions made. But that doesn’t mean the decisionmakers run about unteathered to the principles upon which the game was started.

 

 

[davep043]

If it's not meant to be "fair" why give relief for certain types of Ground Under Repair? Even a major championship played at Stroke Play could be equitably contested with no Ground Under Repair rule on the books. Same for many other allowable exceptions to playing it down.

 

Somewhere along the line, someone with the power to implement Rules changes decided a Ground Under Repair definition and relief was desirable. If not for "fairness" then for whatever other reason they might choose to give. There's likewise no reason those in charge of the Rules could not add an allowance for moving the ball out of divots (which BTW I would not be particularly in favor of, but my preferences matter not at all to the Rules-makers) for exactly the same reasons there is Ground Under Repair allowance.

 

It's all arbitrary. Of all the possible exceptions to playing it down, lots of them have made it into the Rules and even more of them have not. Which ones are and which ones aren't is just a matter of who is holding which end of the stick.

From what I can find out, the idea of Ground Under Repair originated in the 1880s. This is only a guess, but prior to this time there was probably very limited "work" done to a course, other than mowing, and moving the holes. As golf became more popular, more maintenance work was done, so areas disturbed by maintenance were seen as "artificial", in much the same way that cart paths are. To allow relief from man-made issues, whether permanent (obstructions) or temporary (GUR), is consistent with the development of the rules. I think a distinction can reasonably be made between divots, which have been made since the inception of the game, and predate even the earliest rules, and ground which is disturbed for the maintenance of the course (GUR).

[Roadking2003]

If it's not meant to be "fair" why give relief for certain types of Ground Under Repair? Even a major championship played at Stroke Play could be equitably contested with no Ground Under Repair rule on the books. Same for many other allowable exceptions to playing it down.

 

Somewhere along the line, someone with the power to implement Rules changes decided a Ground Under Repair definition and relief was desirable. If not for "fairness" then for whatever other reason they might choose to give. There's likewise no reason those in charge of the Rules could not add an allowance for moving the ball out of divots (which BTW I would not be particularly in favor of, but my preferences matter not at all to the Rules-makers) for exactly the same reasons there is Ground Under Repair allowance.

 

It's all arbitrary. Of all the possible exceptions to playing it down, lots of them have made it into the Rules and even more of them have not. Which ones are and which ones aren't is just a matter of who is holding which end of the stick.

From what I can find out, the idea of Ground Under Repair originated in the 1880s. This is only a guess, but prior to this time there was probably very limited "work" done to a course, other than mowing, and moving the holes. As golf became more popular, more maintenance work was done, so areas disturbed by maintenance were seen as "artificial", in much the same way that cart paths are. To allow relief from man-made issues, whether permanent (obstructions) or temporary (GUR), is consistent with the development of the rules. I think a distinction can reasonably be made between divots, which have been made since the inception of the game, and predate even the earliest rules, and ground which is disturbed for the maintenance of the course (GUR).

 

What about cleaning your ball on the green vs not cleaning it on the fairway? How is that fair one place and not the other.

[North Butte]

I'm sure there's a fascinating and convoluted history of how we got from guys hitting a ball with a crooked stick without touching it, to the current set of Rules and Decisions that parse every conceivable occurrence down into lawyer-speak. But my point is, the Rules ceased to be about a purist's dream of playing the ball tee to green without touching it long before anyone of us was born. Everything is a gray area, everything is subject to future revision and every situation that arises on a golf course has to be judged against a complicated and often contradictory set of elaborate principles and procedures.

 

Or, as is frequently pointed out on this forum, one can ignore huge swaths of the Rulebook and play a game with ones mates that is based on a much simpler set of basic principles. Especially when it's match play or some score-limited format like Stableford or "quota" it is amazing how much of the Rules can be simply ignored with no loss of equity or enjoyment of the game...

[Sawgrass]

. . . it is amazing how much of the Rules can be simply ignored with no loss of equity or enjoyment of the game...

 

Says the person who continually points out that he doesn't like the Rules.

 

No one is asking you to like them, please have your brand of fun. But why on earth are you constantly bothering to ridicule them if it's so easy for you to "simply ignore" them?

[Newby]

What about cleaning your ball on the green vs not cleaning it on the fairway? How is that fair one place and not the other.

 

It's not about being fair. It's about testing the surface. Cleaning a ball on the green could involve testing by roughening. This is not prohibited on the fairway because it would not give the player any useful information.

[davep043]

What about cleaning your ball on the green vs not cleaning it on the fairway? How is that fair one place and not the other.

 

It's not about being fair. It's about testing the surface. Cleaning a ball on the green could involve testing by roughening. This is not prohibited on the fairway because it would not give the player any useful information.

He's been talking about being allowed to mark, lift, and clean a ball on the green, opposed to not being allowed to do the same on the fairway.

[Newby]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Quote:

 

Many situations occur in golf which would appear to merit special consideration. When a ball is in a divot hole in the fairway or a foot print in a bunker, the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else and would seem to be entitled to relief.

Quite correctly, the Rules do not accord any more consideration to these situations than to the player who finds his ball in an equally difficult position created by nature, course condition or any other cause. Chance has brought the player’s ball into an unfavorable position and he must do his best to overcome the

obstacle.

Golf, like life itself, leads those who play it into many situations that appear to be unfair. The successful golfer rises to the occasion and

refuses to give way to fate or frustration. As can be seen, the so-called equity rule will lead to difficulty if applied with the idea of seeking a just

solution in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case.

The penalty for a Rule of golf is not adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analogous situations

and according them all the same treatment.

 

The approach is not whether “this particular situation is unfair to me,” but rather whether “others in a similar situation and I in mine are

treated alike under the Rules.”

 

Unquote

[North Butte]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Many situations occur in golf which would appear to merit special consideration. When a ball is in a divot hole in the fairway or a foot print in a bunker, the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else and would seem to be entitled to relief.

Quite correctly, the Rules do not accord any more consideration to these situations than to the player who finds his ball in an equally difficult position created by nature, course condition or any other cause. Chance has brought the player’s ball into an unfavorable position and he must do his best to overcome the

obstacle.

Golf, like life itself, leads those who play it into many situations that appear to be unfair. The successful golfer rises to the occasion and

refuses to give way to fate or frustration. As can be seen, the so-called equity rule will lead to difficulty if applied with the idea of seeking a just

solution in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case.

The penalty for a Rule of golf is not adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analogous situations

and according them all the same treatment.

 

The approach is not whether “this particular situation is unfair to me,” but rather whether “others in a similar situation and I in mine are

treated alike under the Rules.”

 

Errr, how can I put this. I guess the term "nonsense" comes to mind.

 

The Rules of Golf treat a great many situations as "merit[ing] special consideration", i.e. relief. Others it deems not worthy of relief. There is no a priori reason for any of those yes/no distinctions. Each one was made by Rules-makers, over time, deciding which situations are in and which are out when it comes to relief. And any of those Rules may change in some future revision.

 

Looking for consistency or "fairness" is a mug's game. It is 100% totally arbitrary and always has been.

[Sawgrass]

 

 

Looking for consistency or "fairness" is a mug's game. It is 100% totally arbitrary and always has been.

 

The Rules seem arbitrary to those who are not sensitive or knowledgeable enough to know the difference between randomness and reason. But fortunately for you, you don't care anyway because you're having so much fun ignoring them.

[Roadking2003]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Quote:

 

Many situations occur in golf which would appear to merit special consideration. When a ball is in a divot hole in the fairway or a foot print in a bunker, the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else and would seem to be entitled to relief.

Quite correctly, the Rules do not accord any more consideration to these situations than to the player who finds his ball in an equally difficult position created by nature, course condition or any other cause. Chance has brought the player’s ball into an unfavorable position and he must do his best to overcome the

obstacle.

 

Unquote

 

So why allow ball marks to be repaired on the green? Just like a footprint in the bunker or a divot in the fairway, "the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else ".

[Mudguard]

So why allow ball marks to be repaired on the green? Just like a footprint in the bunker or a divot in the fairway, "the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else ".

 

I'm guessing an unrepaired pitchmark is likely to cause long lasting damage to a green, and it's likely to affect more players than a divot? I couldn't care less about divots in fairways, learn to hit out of them, it's not that much worse.

[LeoLeo99]

So why allow ball marks to be repaired on the green? Just like a footprint in the bunker or a divot in the fairway, "the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else ".

 

I'm guessing an unrepaired pitchmark is likely to cause long lasting damage to a green, and it's likely to affect more players than a divot? I couldn't care less about divots in fairways, learn to hit out of them, it's not that much worse.

 

He means why can you fix it before you hit your putt? Just like you can't fix the footprints in the bunker before you play out of it.

 

Them's the breaks, kid.

[Roadking2003]

So why allow ball marks to be repaired on the green? Just like a footprint in the bunker or a divot in the fairway, "the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else ".

 

I'm guessing an unrepaired pitchmark is likely to cause long lasting damage to a green, and it's likely to affect more players than a divot? I couldn't care less about divots in fairways, learn to hit out of them, it's not that much worse.

 

I suspect divots take much longer to heal than pitch marks. And they can be repaired quite quickly.

 

So why don't you say "I couldn't care less about pitch marks. Learn to hit over them".?

[nsxguy]

I think the rule should be 100% one way or the other. Either allow repair of any imperfection or none at all.

 

And why should you be able to repair a ball mark on the green but not repair or take relief from a divot on the fairway?

 

Many situations occur in golf which would appear to merit special consideration. When a ball is in a divot hole in the fairway or a foot print in a bunker, the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else and would seem to be entitled to relief.

Quite correctly, the Rules do not accord any more consideration to these situations than to the player who finds his ball in an equally difficult position created by nature, course condition or any other cause. Chance has brought the player’s ball into an unfavorable position and he must do his best to overcome the

obstacle.

Golf, like life itself, leads those who play it into many situations that appear to be unfair. The successful golfer rises to the occasion and

refuses to give way to fate or frustration. As can be seen, the so-called equity rule will lead to difficulty if applied with the idea of seeking a just

solution in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case.

The penalty for a Rule of golf is not adjusted to fit the attendant circumstances. The answer lies rather in defining analogous situations

and according them all the same treatment.

 

The approach is not whether “this particular situation is unfair to me,” but rather whether “others in a similar situation and I in mine are

treated alike under the Rules.”

 

Errr, how can I put this. I guess the term "nonsense" comes to mind.

 

The Rules of Golf treat a great many situations as "merit[ing] special consideration", i.e. relief. Others it deems not worthy of relief. There is no a priori reason for any of those yes/no distinctions. Each one was made by Rules-makers, over time, deciding which situations are in and which are out when it comes to relief. And any of those Rules may change in some future revision.

 

Looking for consistency or "fairness" is a mug's game. It is 100% totally arbitrary and always has been.

 

Any chance you read the book that davep043 linked to a while back ? About the origin of the Rules and why the rules are what they are ?

 

I'm guessing "No".

[Newby]

So why allow ball marks to be repaired on the green? Just like a footprint in the bunker or a divot in the fairway, "the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else ".

 

Another quote

 

"It is perhaps unfortunate that the steady improvement in greenkeeping practice and the constantly improving standard of play have given birth to a Rule

which appears to violate one of our most sacred principles, namely that you “play the course as you find it.” The fact is that our putting surfaces

are so excellent and competition is so close that the damage to our greens caused by the impact of balls has become an upsetting factor in the play

of the game. Therefore ball marks and old hole plugs on the putting surface may be repaired [Rule 16-1c].

However, the very license to rectify such specific damage to the course should serve to highlight the fact that nothing else may be repaired.

Golfers should not assume that this Rule has made them members of the greenkeeping staff with the right to correct any adverse condition found

along the line of their putt. With only this exception, the Rules still require that the course be played exactly as the golfer finds it."

[LeoLeo99]

So why allow ball marks to be repaired on the green? Just like a footprint in the bunker or a divot in the fairway, "the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else ".

 

Another quote

 

"It is perhaps unfortunate that the steady improvement in greenkeeping practice and the constantly improving standard of play have given birth to a Rule

which appears to violate one of our most sacred principles, namely that you “play the course as you find it.” The fact is that our putting surfaces

are so excellent and competition is so close that the damage to our greens caused by the impact of balls has become an upsetting factor in the play

of the game. Therefore ball marks and old hole plugs on the putting surface may be repaired [Rule 16-1c].

However, the very license to rectify such specific damage to the course should serve to highlight the fact that nothing else may be repaired.

Golfers should not assume that this Rule has made them members of the greenkeeping staff with the right to correct any adverse condition found

along the line of their putt. With only this exception, the Rules still require that the course be played exactly as the golfer finds it."

 

The proposed rule change contradicts this a wee bit.

[Roadking2003]

So why allow ball marks to be repaired on the green? Just like a footprint in the bunker or a divot in the fairway, "the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else ".

 

Another quote

 

"It is perhaps unfortunate that the steady improvement in greenkeeping practice and the constantly improving standard of play have given birth to a Rule

which appears to violate one of our most sacred principles, namely that you “play the course as you find it.” The fact is that our putting surfaces

are so excellent and competition is so close that the damage to our greens caused by the impact of balls has become an upsetting factor in the play

of the game. Therefore ball marks and old hole plugs on the putting surface may be repaired [Rule 16-1c].

However, the very license to rectify such specific damage to the course should serve to highlight the fact that nothing else may be repaired.

Golfers should not assume that this Rule has made them members of the greenkeeping staff with the right to correct any adverse condition found

along the line of their putt. With only this exception, the Rules still require that the course be played exactly as the golfer finds it."

 

This part is so stupid that it destroys the entire quote. "With only this exception, the Rules still require that the course be played exactly as the golfer finds it."

 

There are many other exceptions to the "play it as you find it" standard.

[Stuart_G]

This part is so stupid that it destroys the entire quote. "With only this exception, the Rules still require that the course be played exactly as the golfer finds it."

 

There are many other exceptions to the "play it as you find it" standard.

 

The quote is referring to the "play the course as you find it" statement, not "play the ball as you find it".

[Roadking2003]

This part is so stupid that it destroys the entire quote. "With only this exception, the Rules still require that the course be played exactly as the golfer finds it."

 

There are many other exceptions to the "play it as you find it" standard.

 

The quote is referring to the "play the course as you find it" statement, not "play the ball as you find it".

 

OK, but there are still many exceptions to the "play the course as you find it" rule such as GUR and obstructions.

[Newby]

Indeed. And these are covered comprehensively in the book referred to above. The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf by Richard S Tufts. You should read it.

 

https://www.usgapublications.com/products/the-principles-behind-the-rules-of-golf-hardcover?variant=25702115526