Are golf rules always good?

[DaveLeeNC]

Just because a rule is easy to follow doesn't mean that it is a good rule. And this one makes no sense in the context of PGA Tour golf. Some examples.

 

1) I once followed Retief Goosen in an early round of a TPC event a number of years ago. There was a gal also following him who was built better than your typical Hooters waitress but not wearing as much clothing. He had no idea that she was around - just like he had no idea what the heck his competitors was doing (even though he was responsible for 'scoring' for one of them.

 

2) Ben Hogan was famous for not having a clue as to what was happening to the others in his group ( in stroke play)

 

3) When competitor A disappears into the woods you will virtually NEVER see 'his marker' follow him. His marker has no clue as to what is going on.

 

There are typically hundreds to many thousands of people watching players hit the ball. There is only ONE person with both the incentive to "get it wrong" (although I will admit that this has probably never happened intentionally) and has a role in the competition (like playing golf) which is actually compromised by paying careful attention to the competitor - and that is the person that is responsible for recording the score. Of course the person responsible for recording the score has ZERO accountability for doing it correctly.

 

Multi-million dollar purses on the line and this is how it is managed. This is not sensible (even if it is theoretically 'easy' to do).

 

dave

 

You've given three good examples why every player should take the time to review the scores before they sign for them.

 

You make it sound like the marker's score is final. It's not, every player keeps their own score, and it isn't too difficult to make sure the marker's scores are the same as your own. In fact it's really quite simple. I'm pretty sure a five-year old could do it.

 

No - I have given "three good examples" as to why this is an inefficient way to score a PGA Tour event. The marker is clearly not useful to the process of generating accurate scores (assuming that the goal of the process is to generate the most accurate scores possible).

 

You could define any number of rules/procedures that aren't helpful to the process of generating accurate scores but are easy to follow. That doesn't make them good rules.

 

dave

[mat562]

What do you propose as an alternative to the current status quo Dave?

[DaveLeeNC]

What do you propose as an alternative to the current status quo Dave?

 

Either a scorer per player or group or just drop the marker concept (assuming that it doesn't cause some insurmountale issue with the ROG). I am not aware of a single case where 'the marker' brought value to the table (at least since my return to the game in 2002). In every case that I am aware of 'the marker' was the source of the error rather than being helpful in correcting errors. But maybe there is something there that I am not aware of.

 

But from my perspective all 'the marker' does is become a source of error. I just see no value (other than tradition and/or possible issues with the ROG).

 

If you were to chose 'the scorer' approach you end up exactly where we are now EXCEPT that the scorer would have some accountability and would actually be tasked to do the scoring job (as opposed to 'the marker' whose primary task is to play competitive golf).

 

dave

[mat562]

Interesting. But my take is the same as it is in my above posts.

 

Whilst a marker may well make a mistake, it's only a mistake until such time as the player sees it and corrects it. Once a player says 'I made a 4 on 14; not a 3' and corrects the score in the process of checking the card, the mistake ceases to exist. Like the Norwegian Blue, it's an ex-problem.

 

As for an independent marker, it's certainly an idea, but it ultimately boils down to exactly what we've already got: someone else marking a player's card. There is still a requirement that a player checks (or at least signs for) the score under the rules of the game - so again, it achieves nothing except giving someone else a job to do that's already being done perfectly well by someone else.

 

The points about a player/marker not necessarily taking much notice are valid, and it's certainly true that a marker can't oversee everything that a fellow competitor does. That said, there's no way that a marker can do that either. One marker with each group can't keep a close eye on three different players who will, on occasion, hit their shots to widely different points on the golf course. So, ultimately, there will still be occasions where he or she will have to ask the age old question 'what did you get there?' - exactly as is the case with the current system where a playing partner marks the card. Marking a card doesn't require that the marker is able to swear on pain of death that the scores are correct. It will always be a combination of what they've seen with their own eyes and what they've been told by a playing partner, who is entrusted to give a true account of how many strokes they took on a particular hole. The player remains responsible for their score and, in the case of them making a mistake, they're liable. In the case of the marker making a mistake, the player is responsible for ensuring that the mistake is identified and remedied. Tee score that is submitted is the ultimate responsibilty of the player. Incredibly simple and unambiguous - and not made any simpler or more unambiguous by having a third party scribbling the scores down instead of a fellow competitor.

 

However you distill it, there will always be a requirement for a player to check and sign his card before submitting it. It's unavoidable since it's an integral part of tournament golf; since a player is responsible for ensuring that a properly formatted and true record of their score on the day is submitted to the tournament committee in the case of competitive golf. Whoever fills it out, it's always the case that the player has to, at some point, agree that the score is correct. If he chooses not to check it, or not to do it properly, or he forgets to sign the card when he's fully aware that he needs to do so, then that is how mistakes like these ones happen. Not because his marker's been remiss in his duties or that anyone's had an unreasonable burden placed upon them by being required to scribble a few numbers on a bit of paper. Because a player hasn't completed a rudimentary set of actions, post-round, that he's fully aware that he needs to do before calling it a day, and thus falls foul of a very simple rule, it really isn't cause to start ripping things up and starting again.

 

Because there are such large sums of money involved, you would imagine that it would be ample encouragement, as if any were needed, for the players to make sure that they accomplish the very simple set of actions that are required of them after the round. The fact that very occasionally some of them don't isn't an indication that the system is unworkable or anachronistic. It isn't a rallying cry for modernisation or some sort of scoring-system revolt. It's an indication that the player concerned has dropped a clanger and needs to do better next time - after admitting that he's failed to abide by a very simple rule that he should know inside-out either though clumsiness, inattention or throwing a tantrum after playing poorly.

 

The fact that none of the major professional tours have seen fit to even seriously debate the issue of possibly changing the scoring procedure is perhaps the best indication of all that it's viewed as an unnecessary solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[DaveLeeNC]

Interesting. But my take is the same as it is in my above posts.

 

 

SNIP

 

The fact that none of the major professional tours have seen fit to even seriously debate the issue of possibly changing the scoring procedure is perhaps the best indication of all that it's viewed as an unnecessary solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

While I still think that it is odd that the current system basically starts with about the most error that you can possibly start with (unless you start with random numbers in the card)...

 

THAT is a very valid obseration.

 

dave

 

ps. OTOH, I would observe that the fact that the players don't think that trying to keep someone else's score is a burden indicates that they don't take that job seriously. Regardless, the observation is still valid (IMHO).

[Rockfish]

In tournament golf, you don't sign for nor are you responsible to add up an 18 hole score. You sign for the score you made on each of the 18 holes. The committee is responsible for adding the numbers up, not the player. Signing for a 63 doesn't matter at all. He signed for other than what he actually made and was penalized appropriately.

 

-mini

 

The textbook answer.

 

I know this - even as someone who's never played professionally. For a tournament professional to not know it - or to not expend sufficient effort to check that he was signing for the correct set of scores - is simply a goof on the player's part. It's unfortunate, tragic, call it what you like, but any way you distill it, it's his own fault. However much sympathy and outrage you can muster, it's ultimately a very simple rule that's really quite easy to not fall foul of if you simply take the time and effort to properly check a card after the round. I've never signed for an incorrect score in my life, because I've always had it drilled into me that a round of competitive golf isn't over until you've checked your card sufficiently well that it precludes any chance of there being a ****-up; and then made sure you've signed it.

 

It's an old fashioned rule, certainly. Probably a bit anachronistic. But, it has the advantage of being really quite simple, easy to follow, and totally unambiguous; so it very effectively removes any grey areas and gives every man jack in the field an agreed set of rules to abide by when it comes to marking and checking the scores properly and a standard penalty when they don't.

 

It's not a rule that needs changing. It's one that needs some attention paid to it.

 

archaic, outdated,,,,,,, not anachronistic. ;)

[mat562]

Pasted from a popular online dictionary:

 

Anachronism Adjective anachronistic (comparative more anachronistic, superlative most anachronistic)

 

Positive

anachronistic

Comparative

more anachronistic

Superlative

most anachronistic

 

 

Erroneous in date; containing an anachronism; in a wrong time.

If you know where to look in the movie, you can spot an anachronistic wrist watch on one of the Roman soldiers.

(of a person) having an opinion of the past; preferring things or values of the past; behind the times; over-conservative.

 

Synonyms outdated, archaic

 

Given the fact that the status quo these days is for everything under the sun to be computerised, the fact that the scoring system in golf is still reliant upon a man, a bit of paper and a pencil could very well be described as being in a wrong time.

 

Also, listed as synonyms (a word or phrase with a meaning that is the same as, or very similar to, another word or phrase) are both archaic and outdated - which suggests that those aren't actually valid corrections for a supposedly misused word or phrase in the first instance.

[xxio]

The scorecard is with a marker/fellow playing competitor already. The reason for that is to discourage cheating.

 

It won't matter if is with a 3rd party/a market because the player still has to check/verify and sign after the round. That is where the responsibility is. If that 3rd party makes a mistake the fault will be on him instead and not on the player. Just imagine the ramifications/complications on that.

 

If the last person checking the card cannot be bothered to check it correctly then he should take up tennis :)

[billsboy]

The argument that the rules will always have the player check and be responsible for their own card regardless of which other party marks it, whether it be a fellow competitor or a tournament official, seems a poor one to me. It is inherent in the argument for an official scorer that score should be kept by an impartial tournament official (as in every other major sport) as part of a rules change that would remove any such responsibility from the player entirely. It is not about suggesting an official scorer replaces a fellow competitor in the role of keeping a card that the player still has to sign for - the idea is to change the rules so as to remove any such requirement from the player entirely, in favour of an impartial score sheet, not to change who plays the role within the current rules. And the included argument for the player's responsibility as it now stands, that we would insult the integrity and the "I can call a penalty on myself" spirit of golf seems flawed too. The rules as currently written already assume that a player would cheat if given an opportunity. Otherwise, a player would keep his own card with no oversight at all, and his submitted score would be treated as Gospel. But that is not how it's done. Furthermore, the player can still call a penalty on himself. It will just be marked as a stroke by an appointed official.

 

I also find the argument that one scorer could not keep any better watch on three golfers at once than could a fellow competitor who might be 100 yards away to be weak, at least logically. Simply provide one scorer per golfer. The question, "What did you shoot there?", would be as foreign to an official golf scorer as would be, "Did that puck go in?", asked of a player by an NHL referee. Now finding that many trained, accountable scoring officials per tournament would be impractical to say the least, even for the PGA, let alone your club championship. This difficulty, and not any concerns about the game's history or integrity or the rule's fairness, is, I suspect, a major reason why no tour has ever advocated a change. Plus, the system does usually work as is. But there are cases where touring pros are burned by this rule (and yes, their lack of the attention that the rules do currently demand) at least several times per season. It seems outdated and a bit harsh to expect a player who has spent a mentally exhausting 5 or 6 hours concentrating exclusively on his swing and course management and not choking with a Major championship and millions of dollars on the line to then instantly switch gears to checking with absolute focus the numbers that another equally involved player wrote down for him.

 

Other arguments aside, it seems to me, and anyone with greater insight into the technicalities of this please correct me if I'm wrong, that there must already BE an official score card kept for each player at a pro event. After all, how can one be DQ'd for signing an incorrect card if there is no official one with which to compare the player's submitted card? Other than the situations where a player later realizes he signed an incorrect score and DQ's himself, how do we know the player's card is incorrect? Please don't tell me that the player's card is compared to the TV coverage leaderboard. That seems truly ridiculous. What if the fellow competitor and the player disagree on what was scored versus what was marked? Who, if not an official, resolves that impasse? So I have to assume there is already an official scoring system, at least a de facto one, and having players sign and submit a card that must match is just an anachronism, sometimes a costly one.

[stage1350]

The only thing a "scorer" will do is give the player another excuse when he signs an incorrect scorecard. The player will still have to verify his score hole for hole and this just adds one more potential source for an error.

 

With the high dollar purses on the line, I think verifying your score after each hole is a small price to pay for a large check at the end of the week.

[larrybud]

IMO, it's an archaic rule for professional golf.

 

Could you imagine: "The New York Giants have been disqualified from the Superbowl for their winning score of 26 when they forgot about the missed extra point and signed for a 27."

 

Put it towards other sports and it is silly.

 

On the other hand, can you remember (or even imagine) an occasion when an NFL team fails to tabulate its score correctly? Tom Coughlin not noticing when 2 point go up instead of 3 for a field goal? When the point of the game is scoring and you're not keeping good track of your own, you deserve what you get. I don't see why the PGA doesn't simply have official scorekeepers though, just for simplicity.

No, because an NFL team isn't required to tabulate their score. That's the point. Every other sport has scoring officials. The PGA has officials with each group. It would be super easy to have them keep score. If the official makes a mistake, then you correct the mistake and move on without repercussion.

 

The point of the game is scoring just like any other sport. Writing down your score is not part of the act of scoring.

 

All that has to happen is that Tiger get DQed one time and the rule will be changed!

[SadTrombone]

All that has to happen is that Tiger get DQed one time and the rule will be changed!

 

Well I'm going to jump out on a limb and say:

1) Tiger knows the rule,

2) Tiger checks his scorecard carefully after every round, before signing it and before leaving the scoring area, and

3) Not gonna happen.

 

Seriously folks, this rule is probably the 2nd easiest rule to comply with in golf. Why complicate it?

 

-mini

[krustyburger]

IMO, it's an archaic rule for professional golf.

 

Could you imagine: "The New York Giants have been disqualified from the Superbowl for their winning score of 26 when they forgot about the missed extra point and signed for a 27."

 

Put it towards other sports and it is silly.

 

On the other hand, can you remember (or even imagine) an occasion when an NFL team fails to tabulate its score correctly? Tom Coughlin not noticing when 2 point go up instead of 3 for a field goal? When the point of the game is scoring and you're not keeping good track of your own, you deserve what you get. I don't see why the PGA doesn't simply have official scorekeepers though, just for simplicity.

No, because an NFL team isn't required to tabulate their score. That's the point. Every other sport has scoring officials. The PGA has officials with each group. It would be super easy to have them keep score. If the official makes a mistake, then you correct the mistake and move on without repercussion.

 

The point of the game is scoring just like any other sport. Writing down your score is not part of the act of scoring.

 

All that has to happen is that Tiger get DQed one time and the rule will be changed!

 

 

And the NFL has 60,000 people watching every play that occurs. You don't have that on a golf course.

 

Even if there was a scoring official for each player, the player should still check his card against the official one to make sure there were no mistakes. So how would that change anything?

[DaveLeeNC]

The only thing a "scorer" will do is give the player another excuse when he signs an incorrect scorecard. The player will still have to verify his score hole for hole and this just adds one more potential source for an error.

 

With the high dollar purses on the line, I think verifying your score after each hole is a small price to pay for a large check at the end of the week.

 

If you decided to 'fix this problem' with a scorer and keep the current 'model' for scoring where 'the scorer' records the official score and the player is responsible for its correctness at the end, then you haven't changed much. However, you would at least have a scorer who is

 

- paying attention

- accountable

- has no incentive to do it wrong (I'm not claiming that as a serious issue)

- has no incentive to not pay attention

 

resulting inevitably (IMHO) in a more accurate starting place.

 

That is not the model that I would advocate, but it would have those improvements over the current practice.

 

dave

[Rockfish]

Pasted from a popular online dictionary:

 

Erroneous in date; containing an anachronism; in a wrong time.

If you know where to look in the movie, you can spot an anachronistic wrist watch on one of the Roman soldiers.

(of a person) having an opinion of the past; preferring things or values of the past; behind the times; over-conservative.

 

Synonyms outdated, archaic

 

Given the fact that the status quo these days is for everything under the sun to be computerised, the fact that the scoring system in golf is still reliant upon a man, a bit of paper and a pencil could very well be described as being in a wrong time.

 

Also, listed as synonyms (a word or phrase with a meaning that is the same as, or very similar to, another word or phrase) are both archaic and outdated - which suggests that those aren't actually valid corrections for a supposedly misused word or phrase in the first instance.

 

I don't know why you didn't NAME your "popular online dictionary" but I'll settle for Merriam-Webster. And I won't break copyright laws by copying and pasting, I'll just point you to it.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/...onism</a>

 

They do NOT list outdated or archaic as synonyms nor do they define those 2 words as meaning the same (or nearly so) as anachronism.

 

Further, you did NOT suggest that scoring being manual rather than computerized was anachronistic. You called the RULE that requires the golfer to verify and sign his scorecard anachronistic and be punished accordingly for an error in same. As in "It's an old fashioned rule, certainly. Probably a bit anachronistic." (which, BTW, I agree with - about it being outdated that is :ok: )

[mat562]

In the interests of not frustrating other readcers with a battle of linguistic wills, we'll agree to differ. On numerous counts by the looks of things.

 

Any chance of making a meaningful contribution to the discussion?

[Rockfish]

In the interests of not frustrating other readcers with a battle of linguistic wills, we'll agree to differ. On numerous counts by the looks of things.

 

Any chance of making a meaningful contribution to the discussion?

 

Any chance we can agree to disagree without being so condescending ??? :rolleyes:

 

Not sure anyone would consider it a "meaningful contribution" but I GAVE my opinion (when I agreed with your intent); it's an outdated rule and needs to be changed.

 

HOWEVER, while I think the marker's score could be considered official, the player would be foolish not to double-check it anyway and be able to have it corrected if necessary.

[jjj912]

...

Now finding that many trained, accountable scoring officials per tournament would be impractical to say the least, even for the PGA, let alone your club championship.

 

Every other major sport doesn't seem to have any issues with recruiting and training scoring officials. The PGA Tour can easily recruit and train scoring officials. I suspect that part of the reason they don't is that to employee a full time staff of scoring officials would be a lot more expensive than relying on a staff of volunteers. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point, but I am under the impression that the Tour relys heavily (practically speaking, maybe even exclusively?) on volunteers and course staff to run tournaments.

 

...

It seems outdated and a bit harsh to expect a player who has spent a mentally exhausting 5 or 6 hours concentrating exclusively on his swing and course management and not choking with a Major championship and millions of dollars on the line to then instantly switch gears to checking with absolute focus the numbers that another equally involved player wrote down for him.

 

Tour players have a caddy and the scorecard from their marker. Presumably, the player or his caddy also kept his own scorecard. Not to mention that a lot of these tournaments have these real big and pretty scoreboards indicating what the player shot on every hole. It's not like the player's being asked to take an exam he didn't study for. He has resources available to him to ensure that the score wrote down for each hole is correct.

 

Other arguments aside, it seems to me, and anyone with greater insight into the technicalities of this please correct me if I'm

wrong, that there must already BE an official score card kept for each player at a pro event. After all, how can one be DQ'd for signing an incorrect card if there is no official one with which to compare the player's submitted card?

 

Sometimes the players realize later that they messed up the score and DQ themselves. Or another member of the foursome catches the mistake.

 

Other than the situations where a player later realizes he signed an incorrect score and DQ's himself, how do we know the player's card is incorrect? Please don't tell me that the player's card is compared to the TV coverage leaderboard. That seems truly ridiculous. What if the fellow competitor and the player disagree on what was scored versus what was marked? Who, if not an official, resolves that impasse? So I have to assume there is already an official scoring system, at least a de facto one, and having players sign and submit a card that must match is just an anachronism, sometimes a costly one.

 

In the event of a dispute, the Committee would have to decide what is the correct score. It would appropriate to use TV coverage when determining the players actual score. See Decision 34-3/9.

[billsboy]

^^^^^

 

So, it still seems to me there is an official scoring system (the Committee, Decisions on the Rules that apply, big pretty scoreboards to consult, and so on) that can override whatever the player signs for anyway. So why still make him do it, at the risk of severe penalty, other than an overdone sense of the "it's always been that way" history of the game?

 

And as to finding scoring officials, every other sport doesn't require 100+ scorers at an event, assuming one per player. But I think we're actually making the same point anyway. It would be costly, and therefore impractical, to recruit, train, outfit, transport, feed and accomodate that many scorers each weekend.

[jjj912]

...

So why still make him do it, at the risk of severe penalty, other than an overdone sense of the "it's always been that way" history of the game?

 

I guess there isn't enough support. At the amateur level, I don't think there is a real need or desire to have an official scorer (how can you play a foot wedge if the guy keeping score is watching? :) ). Also, if the logistics and costs of training and organizing enough official scorers is higher than what the PGA Tour wants to pay, there is no way that an amateur level tournament is going to be able to afford their own official scorers.

 

If you really want to change the rules, the easiest way might be to modify "Conditions of Competition" (Appendix II to the Rules of Golf) to allow the Committee to assign score keeping to any person or entity that the Committee so chooses. This way, the standard practice is for a golfer to keep his own score, but at big tournaments (e.g. PGA Tour tournaments) that responsibility could be handed over to an official scorer. You would have to figure out what to do if there is a disagreement between what the golfer says is his score and what the official scorer says. Also, you would need to determine what to do if it is discovered that the official scorer made a mistake in reporting the player's score.

 

Another idea is to abandon the DQ penalty and replace it with "the difference, or estimated difference, between the actual score and the reported score, plus two strokes".

 

And as to finding scoring officials, every other sport doesn't require 100+ scorers at an event, assuming one per player. But I think we're actually making the same point anyway. It would be costly, and therefore impractical, to recruit, train, outfit, transport, feed and accomodate that many scorers each weekend.

 

One scorer per player seems excessive. You could have only 18 - one per hole. The players would simply pass their cards from one scorer to the next. In some cases, like when Tiger is behind a tree, Mickelson is in a trash can, Van de Velde is in the water, and Calcavechia is building a stance, the official scorer might be a bit busy trying to keep track of who gets how many penalty strokes and how many strokes the players are taking to extricate themselves from the mess their in, but it should be doable. In football (American), there are 22 players and 7 referees, about a 3:1 ratio. You would expect to have no worse than 4:1 in golf, and keeping track of 4 golfers has got be a lot easier than tracking 22 football players.

[mikec222]

are golf rules always good? lol not at all. Golf has the most antiquated rules of any major sport.

 

Also many basic rules made in the beginning were not created in the spirit they have been warped in to.

[mikec222]

also, I don't see there being too big a problem with golfers keeping eachother's score, I don't think that's the issue. However, why is there a need to dq when there has been an error or, with what's common with tv rules officials nowadays, a modification of the score after the card had been signed.

 

At the time the score was right, how does having a penalty added after make the first score wrong? It just changed from the time the card was signed

[Rockfish]

And as to finding scoring officials, every other sport doesn't require 100+ scorers at an event, assuming one per player. But I think we're actually making the same point anyway. It would be costly, and therefore impractical, to recruit, train, outfit, transport, feed and accomodate that many scorers each weekend.

 

Train ? Hell, most anybody can record and add up single digit numbers !!! :rolleyes:

 

Who needs PAID scorekeepers ? There are 1,000 volunteers to do most everything at a PGA Tournament. (Presumably so they can give the 55 kazillion dollars they do to charity ???)

 

The scorekeeper doesn't need to WATCH to keep track of their scores - the players simply tell the scorekeepr what they made after each hole. After 18 the offficial scorekeeper checks with the players to see if they want to double-check the scores. If so, the do. If not, the scorekeeper hands in the official scores, someone checks the arithmetic and that's that.