USGA Proposes to Modernize Rules of Golf

[Halebopp]

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.

 

There are situations where we don't play the ball as it lies and the course as we find it.

 

- Loose impediments and movable obstructions. These can move about during a round of golf, whether it is a rake in a bunker, a banana peel left behind by the group ahead or leaves and twigs dropping and moving with the wind. There's a very good argument to allow those to be moved as the situation could be different for different groups. There is no requirement to move them though.

 

- We get free relief from abnormal ground conditions and immovable obstructions (we can even lose a ball in those as long as we know the ball is lost there). Those are things not supposed to be on the course. The free relief is allowed to protect the course, necessary equipment and buildings on it and the player and his equipment. The important thing to remember is that there's no guarantee the relief will be in a better place, it is often better to play the ball as it lies, especially from cart paths close to the green.

 

-There are places you can't play from. Environmentally sensitive areas, wrong putting greens, ground under repair if so notified. You can't even enter environmentally sensitive areas so it's impossible to play from them. Those areas are determined by governmental agencies and thus the course has no say in the subject matter. I don't think the need to protect the greens and some GURs is self evident.

 

- We can fix ball marks on the greens any time. Putting (and chipping) is a game quite different from the game from tee to green. Like Tufts points out, ball marks would play too big a role on the greens if left unrepaired (and don't we all know it). Spike marks on the other hand don't have as much of an effect and in essence would allow players to repair and smooth any bit of the green.

 

- We are also allowed to mark and lift our balls in certain situations - for identification, checking if the ball is broken, moving the ball out of some other player's way and on the greens. What is common to all of these is that you need to replace the ball and you can't do anything that might affect the lie of the ball nor the ball itself beyond what's necessary (cleaning the ball enough to identify or check if it's fit for play) and what you can do on the green anyway (clean the ball and fix ball marks). You can't move loose impediments when your ball is lifted if there's a chance the ball might move because of the removal if the ball was lying on the ground.

 

- You can lift your ball in play if it comes to rest on or inside a movable obstruction but after removing the movable obstruction, the ball needs to be dropped to simulate the random landing of the ball without the movable obstruction. Again, you do have the option of playing the ball as it lies but certainly we shouldn't be playing a ball from inside a plastic bag?

 

- The biggest exception (in my mind) is losing a ball in a water hazard and not being required to take stroke and distance penalty.

 

- If we adjust our score by one stroke, we can move our ball out of bad lies, water hazards etc with certain limitations. Without these possibilities (lose a ball or find it unplayable and you'd need to go home, or with S&D being the only option, the rounds would take a lot longer), there's a good chance the playing field would be limited to characters similar to what we come across in Wodehouse's books.

 

I might've missed some cases and these are solely my thoughts (based on discussions on this forum, Tuft's book and other reading and possiblyeven with a hint of my own thinking) on why these exceptions are in place. As for divots (some want relief from divots, others from divot holes, some from unrepaired, some from repaired), I've yet to see a clear definition of a divot hole we could all agree on. Provide one and we can discuss the matter.

[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".

 

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

 

In those cases, we are not allowed to modify or change the course, only change the location from which we play. So really only a case of not playing the ball as it lies, it's still playing the course as you find it.

 

One might make the argument about movable obstructions and loose impediments - but then there is the counter argument that those things are naturally dynamic and not integral parts of the course - so their movement (or alteration) is really not modifying the course itself.

[davep043]

An interesting read, for those who are interested:

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

Richard Tufts was not a fan of the new (in 10960) rule that allowed repair of ballmarks on the green, as well as other changes that were making the game "softer."

[LeoLeo99]

An interesting read, for those who are interested:

http://gsrpdf.lib.ms...1960/601112.pdf

Richard Tufts was not a fan of the new (in 10960) rule that allowed repair of ballmarks on the green, as well as other changes that were making the game "softer."

 

Nice find.

[Newby]

An interesting read, for those who are interested:

http://gsrpdf.lib.ms...1960/601112.pdf

Richard Tufts was not a fan of the new (in 10960) rule that allowed repair of ballmarks on the green, as well as other changes that were making the game "softer."

He'll be turning in his grave come 2019.

[Roadking2003]

As for divots (some want relief from divots, others from divot holes, some from unrepaired, some from repaired), I've yet to see a clear definition of a divot hole we could all agree on. Provide one and we can discuss the matter.

 

Easy. Just allow players to move the ball 6 inches for any reason whatsoever. No debate. No rules official needed. Problem solved.

[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.

 

In those cases, we are not allowed to modify or change the course, only change the location from which we play. So really only a case of not playing the ball as it lies, it's still playing the course as you find it.

 

One might make the argument about movable obstructions and loose impediments - but then there is the counter argument that those things are naturally dynamic and not integral parts of the course - so their movement (or alteration) is really not modifying the course itself.

 

You are joking, right? Moving the ball is not "playing the course as you find it"

[Sawgrass]

As for divots (some want relief from divots, others from divot holes, some from unrepaired, some from repaired), I've yet to see a clear definition of a divot hole we could all agree on. Provide one and we can discuss the matter.

 

Easy. Just allow players to move the ball 6 inches for any reason whatsoever. No debate. No rules official needed. Problem solved.

 

Unless you're looking to enjoy the challenge of golf.

[nsxguy]

As for divots (some want relief from divots, others from divot holes, some from unrepaired, some from repaired), I've yet to see a clear definition of a divot hole we could all agree on. Provide one and we can discuss the matter.

 

Easy. Just allow players to move the ball 6 inches for any reason whatsoever. No debate. No rules official needed. Problem solved.

 

So then if your opponent's ball rolled up a few inches on a mound, giving him a hook lie, you'd be just fine with him moving it to a perfectly flat lie ?

 

Or if a tree branch obstructed your opponent's shot to the pin you'd be just fine with him moving it and having a clear shot ?

 

Or if your opponent's chip shot had to come perilously close to the edge of a bunker, you'd be perfectly OK with him moving it 6 inches and take that bunker out of play ?

 

And, and, and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

And remember now, "rub of the green" is NOT an acceptable answer. :cheesy:

[Stuart_G]

You are joking, right? Moving the ball is not "playing the course as you find it"

 

Simply moving the ball does nothing to alter the course in any way. And if you are not altering the course, then yes you are playing the course as you find it.

[Roadking2003]

As for divots (some want relief from divots, others from divot holes, some from unrepaired, some from repaired), I've yet to see a clear definition of a divot hole we could all agree on. Provide one and we can discuss the matter.

 

Easy. Just allow players to move the ball 6 inches for any reason whatsoever. No debate. No rules official needed. Problem solved.

 

So then if your opponent's ball rolled up a few inches on a mound, giving him a hook lie, you'd be just fine with him moving it to a perfectly flat lie ?

 

Or if a tree branch obstructed your opponent's shot to the pin you'd be just fine with him moving it and having a clear shot ?

 

Or if your opponent's chip shot had to come perilously close to the edge of a bunker, you'd be perfectly OK with him moving it 6 inches and take that bunker out of play ?

 

And, and, and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

And remember now, "rub of the green" is NOT an acceptable answer. :cheesy:

 

In the fairway or on the green, move it six inches. The odds of that fixing an unplayable situation are one in a million. And six inches rarely fixes a hook lie situation since most fairways don't have six inch bumps.

 

Why are you OK with fixing a bump in the green but not a huge hole in the fairway?

 

Why are you OK with cleaning a ball on the green but not a ball covered with mud in the fairway?

[Newby]

Because, as said above, modern greens are very different from fairways. They are designed to be pristine, fairways are only designed to be better than the rough.

This was not the case in the past.

[nsxguy]

Because, as said above, modern greens are very different from fairways. They are designed to be pristine, fairways are only designed to be better than the rough.

This was not the case in the past.

 

You do realize you're wasting your cyber-breath on RoadKing, no ?

[LeoLeo99]

Because, as said above, modern greens are very different from fairways. They are designed to be pristine, fairways are only designed to be better than the rough.

This was not the case in the past.

 

Are you saying the rules of golf are flexible depending on agronomy?

 

Doesn't sound like something you'd say.

 

If changes in agronomy make it so fairways are pristine in the future then we can change the rules to deal with that. :taunt:

[Sawgrass]

Because, as said above, modern greens are very different from fairways. They are designed to be pristine, fairways are only designed to be better than the rough.

This was not the case in the past.

 

Are you saying the rules of golf are flexible depending on agronomy?

 

Doesn't sound like something you'd say.

 

If changes in agronomy make it so fairways are pristine in the future then we can change the rules to deal with that. :taunt:

The truth is that for the past 274 years, the Rules have in fact changed. Often based on changes in science. Here is a Decision that did not exist in 1744:

 

14-3/14

 

Electronic Instrument Used to Find Ball

 

Q.A radio-frequency identification chip has been embedded in a golf ball. When used with a special radio receiver, a player may find such a ball readily because the receiver emits a signal that grows louder as the person holding the receiver moves closer to the ball. Is the use of such a ball and receiver permissible?

 

A.No. Use of such a ball in conjunction with the receiver is a breach of Rule 14-3.

 

However, use of such a ball without the receiver is permissible, provided the ball conforms to the Rules, the embedded chip has no capability other than identifying the ball and its use is in accordance with any conditions of competition that may have been adopted (e.g., the List of Conforming Golf Balls Condition).

[LeoLeo99]

Because, as said above, modern greens are very different from fairways. They are designed to be pristine, fairways are only designed to be better than the rough.

This was not the case in the past.

 

Are you saying the rules of golf are flexible depending on agronomy?

 

Doesn't sound like something you'd say.

 

If changes in agronomy make it so fairways are pristine in the future then we can change the rules to deal with that. :taunt:

The truth is that for the past 274 years, the Rules have in fact changed. Often based on changes in science. Here is a Decision that did not exist in 1744:

 

14-3/14

 

 

Electronic Instrument Used to Find Ball

 

 

Q.A radio-frequency identification chip has been embedded in a golf ball. When used with a special radio receiver, a player may find such a ball readily because the receiver emits a signal that grows louder as the person holding the receiver moves closer to the ball. Is the use of such a ball and receiver permissible?

 

A.No. Use of such a ball in conjunction with the receiver is a breach of Rule 14-3.

 

However, use of such a ball without the receiver is permissible, provided the ball conforms to the Rules, the embedded chip has no capability other than identifying the ball and its use is in accordance with any conditions of competition that may have been adopted (e.g., the List of Conforming Golf Balls Condition).

 

Deflection, bro.

 

I'm more interested in rules that changed to allow something that used to be banned. Who's to say greens are designed to be pristine but fairways are not?

[Sawgrass]

Because, as said above, modern greens are very different from fairways. They are designed to be pristine, fairways are only designed to be better than the rough.

This was not the case in the past.

 

Are you saying the rules of golf are flexible depending on agronomy?

 

Doesn't sound like something you'd say.

 

If changes in agronomy make it so fairways are pristine in the future then we can change the rules to deal with that. :taunt:

The truth is that for the past 274 years, the Rules have in fact changed. Often based on changes in science. Here is a Decision that did not exist in 1744:

 

14-3/14

 

 

Electronic Instrument Used to Find Ball

 

 

Q.A radio-frequency identification chip has been embedded in a golf ball. When used with a special radio receiver, a player may find such a ball readily because the receiver emits a signal that grows louder as the person holding the receiver moves closer to the ball. Is the use of such a ball and receiver permissible?

 

A.No. Use of such a ball in conjunction with the receiver is a breach of Rule 14-3.

 

However, use of such a ball without the receiver is permissible, provided the ball conforms to the Rules, the embedded chip has no capability other than identifying the ball and its use is in accordance with any conditions of competition that may have been adopted (e.g., the List of Conforming Golf Balls Condition).

 

Deflection, bro.

 

I'm more interested in rules that changed to allow something that used to be banned. Who's to say greens are designed to be pristine but fairways are not?

Jointly, the USGA and R&A "are to say."

 

But beyond that, and to your true point, I like where they are on this. I'm happy to fight what comes to me on the fairway (or in the rough or hazards for that matter) and I also like the ability to create more pristine greens so putting, the skill so very different than ball striking, can be showcased. (And for better or worse it looks like we'll soon be allowed to do more work manicuring the greens.)

[LeoLeo99]

I'm not saying I don't like where they are on this. it's not a like or not like discussion. It's just puzzling to me that the design intentions of the golf course and agronomy affect the rules. I would think the rules would be agnostic from agronomy.

[rogolf]

I'm not saying I don't like where they are on this. it's not a like or not like discussion. It's just puzzling to me that the design intentions of the golf course and agronomy affect the rules. I would think the rules would be agnostic from agronomy.

They are agnostic wrt agronomy. The Rules define a putting green as "specially prepared for putting"; they don't say anything about the condition of the putting green, "pristine" or otherwise.

[Halebopp]

Deflection, bro.

 

I'm more interested in rules that changed to allow something that used to be banned. Who's to say greens are designed to be pristine but fairways are not?

 

I doubt anyone is saying that. It is simply a situation we have arrived in and have come to expect. People probably just enjoy rolling a ball along a smooth surface into the hole rather than try to chip it into the hole over rough terrain. That might be quite surprising considering how many people seem to not enjoy putting or give themselves putts. I believe bad greens hurt course income more than (relatively as) bad fairways.

 

There is no need or requirement for greens in the Rules. All you need is a teeing ground (the start line) and the hole (the finishing line), a ball, a club and the Rules to sort any issues one might encounter on the journey.

 

The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules.

 

Edit: Here's a picture I saw from the meeting and training held in St. Andrews. I do wonder if they had a water hazard in the next room. :)

 

[Newby]

The technological advances in agronomy have made it possible to produce an area of the course where putting becomes a more distinct distinct stroke. Presumably players appreciated the opportunity to use a different skill and the RBs responded by making a green a special place.

[Roadking2003]

Because, as said above, modern greens are very different from fairways. They are designed to be pristine, fairways are only designed to be better than the rough.

This was not the case in the past.

 

You do realize you're wasting your cyber-breath on RoadKing, no ?

 

Now, now. Let's all play nicely together.

 

You can't get your panties in a wad just because somebody doesn't agree with you.

 

And if we all agreed, this board would be quite boring.

[DaveLeeNC]

The technological advances in agronomy have made it possible to produce an area of the course where putting becomes a more distinct distinct stroke. Presumably players appreciated the opportunity to use a different skill and the RBs responded by making a green a special place.

 

IIRC, about 10 or so years ago Arnie was asked what was the biggest technological impact on golf during his lifetime. His answer was "the lawnmower" and he was serious about that.

 

dave

[davep043]

The technological advances in agronomy have made it possible to produce an area of the course where putting becomes a more distinct distinct stroke. Presumably players appreciated the opportunity to use a different skill and the RBs responded by making a green a special place.

The putting green definition we have today, an area specially prepared for putting, wasn't used until 1952, And rule changes allowing a player to mark, lift, and clean his ball on the putting green didn't happen until 1960. Better mowers, underground sprinkler systems, improved chemicals. For anyone who would like to be at least a little knowledgeable about the development of the rules, you might want to read this site:

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

[irvnasty]

I think irvnasty's point may have been missed. He's not saying his eyesight is horrible. He's saying he wears glasses to see. Without the glasses, seeing a ball is impossible. Glasses are a basic tech advancement that skews lightwaves and makes it easy for his eyes to see.

 

If the ruling bodies truly felt finding your ball was an essential skill of the game, they would not allow eyeglasses. They would fall under unusual equipment.

 

Playing the shot once you are over the ball, moving the ball from here to there, is the essence of golf. Finding the ball should be a given.

 

Yes, you summarized my point precisely. My vision is not that bad. I am by no means blind. But it is bad enough that without glasses or some other help it would be very difficult indeed to play golf. Fortunately for me, the Rules of Golf permit the use of some technology to find balls, so I wear glasses and probably have as good or better eyesight than most people.

 

Clearly Sawgrass and I disagree on what degree of technology should be permitted to find a ball. That's okay, reasonable minds can disagree on a thing like that. But my point was not about accommodations for someone with truly terrible eyesight, it was more a point that a substantial percentage of people in the world are already using glasses or LASIK to find golf balls by way of electromagnetic radiation. Whether or not someone think that's pertinent to the discussion is to them to decide!

[Newby]

a substantial percentage of people in the world are already using glasses or LASIK to find golf balls by way of electromagnetic radiation.

 

Do they have LASIK (or wear glasses) specifically to find their golf ball.

How does LASIK fit in with electromagnetic radiation? Surely it is a surgical procedure.

Do the glasses have sensors?

[Stuart_G]

How does LASIK fit in with electromagnetic radiation?

 

Light is a form of EMR which laser's of course emit. But it's irrelevant. There is nothing in the rules specifically against using EM radiation. (As you know but apparently some others need reminding), the rules just don't allow using (non-approved) artificial devices and unusual equipment during the round. So it would only be an issue if one wanted to carry around and use the lasik device such as having the surgery during the round. Not something I'd really be worried about happening :-)

 

Well, since we are already going down some ridiculous tangents here, I guess that in theory, if someone were ingenious enough to develop a golf ball covering that caused the ball to glow significantly when a normal laser rangefinder was pointed at it, it could help in the search. But the rules would have that covered as well as it would likely be considered an abnormal use of equipment.

[North Butte]

Don't know why people persist in these philosophical arguments, trying to derive the Rules of Golf from first principles. You can't use an electronic golf ball finder because the Rules say you can't. You can play after LASIK surgery because the Rules allow it. There's no common thread of logic with which the Rules are expected to be consistent, each thing that is allowed and disallowed is purely because the current version of the Rules say so.

[davep043]

Don't know why people persist in these philosophical arguments, trying to derive the Rules of Golf from first principles. You can't use an electronic golf ball finder because the Rules say you can't. You can play after LASIK surgery because the Rules allow it. There's no common thread of logic with which the Rules are expected to be consistent, each thing that is allowed and disallowed is purely because the current version of the Rules say so.

Have you read the Tufts book about the Principles? If I remember right, it only costs about 5 bucks, its not like its a huge investment. You might change your mind if you do.

[North Butte]

No, and hasn't this thread already established a dozen different ways in which the current Rules violate Tufts' "principles"? Included one or more things that Tufts himself is on record finding abhorrent.

 

It's a fool looks for logic in the chambers of the golf rulebook [apologies to Ulysses Everett McGill].