Rules Q.. puzzled - Definition of "Abnormal Ground"

[KevCarter]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='11 June 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1276296333' post='2503720']
[QUOTE=Kevin]
I actually believe the rules of golf are quite brilliant, especially
considering the number of people with such a wide variety of abilities,
and an unlimited number of varying fields of play with so many
different problems that can arise at any time. combine that with the
fact the game is played outside in the elements of nature... I can't
imagine starting over and trying to create the rules taking all the
potential situations under consideration.
[/QUOTE]

They can't be brilliant if no one plays by them. And no one in the world can possibly play by all of the USGA Rulebook.

If they were brilliant, they wouldn't have pages of decisions which frequently contradict the Rules ( eg 8-2.b which is over-ruled in a Decision ). The root of the problem lies in your last few sentences. The rules try to specifically address every possible scenario. This is wildly unnecessary. One page, such as <http://trga.info/trgabasics.html> would suffice ( although I don't agree with those rules, the point is that you don't need many ). If the rules were even decently-written, professionals would be able to remember and apply them without assistance. That is demonstrably false. If they were 'brilliant', recreational golfers would be able to remember and apply them... which is obviously incredibly far from being the case.

Take, as a counter-example, bowling. The playing rules are a page or two, and almost universally known and applied. I hate bowling, but that's how it should be. Golf should not have rules which are impossible to correctly apply ( who can definitely determine a hole dug by a borrowing animal from one dug by a non-borrowing animal? Are you kidding me? ). It should not have equipment rules that make it impossible to build a legal club. Golf should have a rule book, not a travesty.
[/quote]


You are comparing golf rules to bowling rules? Sounds fair, bowling is played indoors on an alley that is basically identical every where you go. Not many changes with conditions indoors. Very similar to golf.

Kevin

[David Hillman]

[quote name='Sawgrass' date='11 June 2010 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1276301248' post='2503849']
It sounds to me like you are not actually reading the rules, because they don't say what you state they say. They do say this:

------------
"If it is not known that the ball is in the water hazard, in order for the player to proceed under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14304#26-1"][color="#000000"]26-1[/color][/url] there must be almost no doubt that the ball is in the hazard. Otherwise, a ball that cannot be found must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14306#27-1"][color="#000000"]27-1[/color][/url].

All available evidence must be taken into account in determining whether knowledge or virtual certainty exists, including any testimony and the physical conditions in the area around the water hazard. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which a ball could hardly be lost, there exists a greater certainty that the ball is in the hazard than there would be if there were deep rough in the area."

---------------------

"Almost no doubt" and "all available evidence" sound pretty reasonable to me, and are far from your "There has to be no other possibility, which to me, means you basically have to see the ball submerged, and be able to identify it."

The bottom line is that I don't know why you feel you should be entitled to the relief available for a water hazard if you don't have a virtual certainty that you're in it.
[/quote]

I don't actually feel that you should be entitled to water hazard relief under those circumstances, I feel the whole distinction is unnecessary. By definition, the player does not know where a lost ball is. Forcing him to make guesses, educated or otherwise, about where it might be, is poor rule-making. It is, as the rules like to say, 'a question of fact' whether the ball is lost or not. That should be the only necessary distinction. If you lose your ball, then you have options a, b, c, etc. Adding impossible conditions on to that otherwise simple situation makes the rules 'virtually' unusable.

That said, I find it interesting that you truncated 26 1/1 above. Specifically, you omitted the key final sentence...

"Observing a ball splash in a water hazard would not necessarily provide knowledge or virtual certainty as to the location of the ball as sometimes such a ball may skip out of a hazard."


That's the part that throws the monkey into the wrench.

Finally, I don't see much difference between your "almost no doubt" and my "there has to be no other possibility". But again, if the rules were written acceptably, we wouldn't have to get into semantic arguments over them.

Burn all the rulebooks and start from scratch.

[David Hillman]

[quote name='kevcarter ' date='12 June 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1276344461' post='2504504']
You are comparing golf rules to bowling rules? Sounds fair, bowling is played indoors on an alley that is basically identical every where you go. Not many changes with conditions indoors. Very similar to golf.
[/quote]


Bowling may have a simpler playing field... but golf is not fundamentally a complicated game. Falling-down drunks can remember and correctly apply bowling rules, but experienced golf professionals apparently have virtually no chance at doing the same with golf rules, because they need constant baby-sitting from a rules official. The difference is stark, and not many of those golf rules deal with things like weather, or the differences between courses.

Ironically, the USGA rules already have one rule that could replace tens of page of their book...

"1-4. Points Not Covered by Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity."

Even a drunk golfer could probably remember that one.

[KevCarter]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='12 June 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1276361259' post='2504827']
[quote name='kevcarter ' date='12 June 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1276344461' post='2504504']
You are comparing golf rules to bowling rules? Sounds fair, bowling is played indoors on an alley that is basically identical every where you go. Not many changes with conditions indoors. Very similar to golf.
[/quote]


Bowling may have a simpler playing field... but golf is not fundamentally a complicated game. Falling-down drunks can remember and correctly apply bowling rules, but experienced golf professionals apparently have virtually no chance at doing the same with golf rules, because they need constant baby-sitting from a rules official. The difference is stark, and not many of those golf rules deal with things like weather, or the differences between courses.

Ironically, the USGA rules already have one rule that could replace tens of page of their book...

"1-4. Points Not Covered by Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity."

Even a drunk golfer could probably remember that one.
[/quote]

I will be anxious to see what you and your drunken bowling buddies can come up with. Good luck!

Kevin

[Socrates]

I also side with kevcarter with the Rules of Golf being a brilliant piece of work. Could it be shorter? Likely, but most avid golfers are an anal, fanatical, "Wall Street Lawyer" kind of group and want a definitive answer to every possible situation. Heck, if a golfer had written the 10 Commandments, there would be 400 pages of addendums too.

So Rule 1-4 has become less used because people don't like the uncertainty of using their best judgement so you have all these Decisions written to cover all the "what ifs". I actually prefer the way it was written back in the 70's and early 80's before the wording became "easier" because every word meant exactly what it said, but that's just me.

[stevestrike]

Interesting debate on the rules. I can really see both sides of it. David Hillman has a good point about how it's pretty much impossible for anyone to know all the rules, even people who play professionally. They certainly could be shorter.

But David, I think people have adopted their own "Shorthand" version of the rules already in response to this over-complication. It's the weekend golf you see 90% of players follow every Saturday morning. Gimmie putts, improper drops, playing the ball up, not counting penalty strokes correctly, etc..

[David Hillman]

[quote name='stevestrike' date='12 June 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1276398944' post='2505645']
Interesting debate on the rules. I can really see both sides of it. David Hillman has a good point about how it's pretty much impossible for anyone to know all the rules, even people who play professionally. They certainly could be shorter.

But David, I think people have adopted their own "Shorthand" version of the rules already in response to this over-complication. It's the weekend golf you see 90% of players follow every Saturday morning. Gimmie putts, improper drops, playing the ball up, not counting penalty strokes correctly, etc..
[/quote]


Your second paragraph, to me, is quite damning. If the Rulebook were anything close to 'brilliant', as others have suggested, it would be completely unnecessary, redundant, and frankly just stupid for people to adopt their own version(s). The fact that 99% of golfers, hell, 99% of posters to this, the largest golf rules forum in the world, make frequent if-not constant errors of interpretation should be an outrage.


How can anyone argue that the Rules are anything but a traveshamockery when no one plays by them? That's insane. Even if you were motivated to, and had a photographic memory, it is physically impossible to play golf by the USGA Rules as currently written.

[David Hillman]

[quote name='Socrates' date='12 June 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1276365995' post='2504944']
I also side with kevcarter with the Rules of Golf being a brilliant piece of work. Could it be shorter? Likely, but most avid golfers are an anal, fanatical, "Wall Street Lawyer" kind of group and want a definitive answer to every possible situation. Heck, if a golfer had written the 10 Commandments, there would be 400 pages of addendums too.
[/quote]

I think your claim about the characteristics of 'most avid golfers' is demonstrably false. I find avid golfers all over the course every time I play... none of whom know, or play by, the USGA Rules. I'm sure those types exist, but I don't see how they could be near a majority.

Further, any such type of person would obviously have read the Rules, and figured out that it is impossible to play by them. Yet, I seem to be the only person on this thread who knows that... so am I the only 'anal, fanatical' type here?

The vast majority of avid golfers I find on course are anything but as-you-describe. They rarely even need a 'definitive answer' to where their last shot wound up. If they find it, they play it. If not, they drop a new one and continue.

It seems to me that the 'avid fanatical' types are the ones writing the Rules, and then constantly re-writing them via Decisions. They seem to be completely at-odds with golfers in-general. Instead of codifying the game as it is played, which is normally the intent of rulebook, they seem to be trying to create a new game. One that grows evermore complex, and unplayable, and frankly, less enjoyable. When do we say "Enough!"?

[Socrates]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='13 June 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1276463688' post='2506315']
[quote name='Socrates' date='12 June 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1276365995' post='2504944']
I also side with kevcarter with the Rules of Golf being a brilliant piece of work. Could it be shorter? Likely, but most avid golfers are an anal, fanatical, "Wall Street Lawyer" kind of group and want a definitive answer to every possible situation. Heck, if a golfer had written the 10 Commandments, there would be 400 pages of addendums too.
[/quote]

I think your claim about the characteristics of 'most avid golfers' is demonstrably false. I find avid golfers all over the course every time I play... none of whom know, or play by, the USGA Rules. I'm sure those types exist, but I don't see how they could be near a majority.

Further, any such type of person would obviously have read the Rules, and figured out that it is impossible to play by them. Yet, I seem to be the only person on this thread who knows that... so am I the only 'anal, fanatical' type here?

The vast majority of avid golfers I find on course are anything but as-you-describe. They rarely even need a 'definitive answer' to where their last shot wound up. If they find it, they play it. If not, they drop a new one and continue.

It seems to me that the 'avid fanatical' types are the ones writing the Rules, and then constantly re-writing them via Decisions. They seem to be completely at-odds with golfers in-general. Instead of codifying the game as it is played, which is normally the intent of rulebook, they seem to be trying to create a new game. One that grows evermore complex, and unplayable, and frankly, less enjoyable. When do we say "Enough!"?
[/quote]

Not being a majority doesn't preclude the need or want to know the rules of any sport. The fact that they don't know the rules verbatim doesn't mean that they don't adhere to the rules as they know them.


There a millions of golfers that have a very good working knowledge of the rules and successfully play by them every day. I seem to watch many golfers every week on TV that adhere to the rules (to the letter) and seem to play quite well.

Many avid golfers don't have a good working knowledge of all the rules but they unknowingly use Rule 1-4 and do what seems fair based on their knowledge of the game. If they had a better knowledge of the fundamental rules, they could most assuredly make their golf experience better as there are more instances where the rules help you than hurt you.

The Decisions are not constantly re-written as most of them are decades old with only a few additions (sometimes deletions) or revisions every few years. Most of the decisions come about because of the rare event happening and for the most part, never come into play in a normal round - ever. I bet I haven't had a situation arise in years where I had to haul out the rule book to figure out my options. Nearly everything is covered using common sense and a little knowledge on how the rules work.

I would disagree that the rules have made the game "evermore complex, and unplayable, and frankly, less enjoyable". The fundamental rules have had only a few changes in decades and most are just clarifications on existing rules. You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to employ the rules, just a few hours reading the rule book (not the Decisions - just the Rules) will give you more than enough understanding to play by the rules and enjoy it.

[David Hillman]

[quote name='Socrates' date='13 June 2010 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1276474852' post='2506750']
Not being a majority doesn't preclude the need or want to know the rules of any sport.
[/quote]

Certainly not, but the previously poster said 'most' which is what I had a problem with.

[quote name='Socrates']
There a millions of golfers that have a very good working knowledge of the rules and successfully play by them every day. I seem to watch many golfers every week on TV that adhere to the rules (to the letter) and seem to play quite well.
[/quote]

No, they don't, because as I mentioned, it is physically impossible to play the game according to all of the USGA rules as currently written.

[quote name='Socrates']
Many avid golfers don't have a good working knowledge of all the rules but they unknowingly use Rule 1-4 and do what seems fair based on their knowledge of the game. If they had a better knowledge of the fundamental rules, they could most assuredly make their golf experience better as there are more instances where the rules help you than hurt you.
[/quote]

I don't believe your last sentence is true, in comparison to the way most golfers golf. Most golfers take gimmes, drops in favorable locations, and almost never take more than a 1 stroke penalty for anything. The rules will often help you compared to playing the ball as it lies everywhere and taking stroke-and-distance whenever you can't... but one one plays that way.

[quote name='Socrates']
The Decisions are not constantly re-written as most of them are decades old with only a few additions (sometimes deletions) or revisions every few years. Most of the decisions come about because of the rare event happening and for the most part, never come into play in a normal round - ever. I bet I haven't had a situation arise in years where I had to haul out the rule book to figure out my options. Nearly everything is covered using common sense and a little knowledge on how the rules work.
[/quote]

Well if so many of the rules are unnecessary, let's get rid of them, and use 1-4 to cover those situations. I think 1-4 can definitely be said to 'use common sense'... but some of the rest of the 'book, definitely not so much.

[quote name='Socrates']
I would disagree that the rules have made the game "evermore complex, and unplayable, and frankly, less enjoyable". The fundamental rules have had only a few changes in decades and most are just clarifications on existing rules. You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to employ the rules, just a few hours reading the rule book (not the Decisions - just the Rules) will give you more than enough understanding to play by the rules and enjoy it.
[/quote]

The rules certainly don't make the game more complex, etc... because no one plays by them. If they did, it'd be a mess.

And you most certainly do need to read the Decisions, because they often conflict the Rule, or add unanticipated complexity. For example, Decision 20-3a/2 directly contradicts Rule 8-2b. And as discussed above, Decision 26 1/1 adds substantially to what, I think, most people would consider 'virtually certain' using their own common sense.

For what it's worth... you can honestly say that your common sense agrees with this one?

[quote name='Rules']

18-2a/33 Rotating Ball on Putting Green Without Marking Position

Q. A player rotates his ball on the putting green to line up the trademark with the hole. He did not lift the ball, mark its position or change its position. Is there a penalty?

A. Yes, one stroke for touching the ball other than as provided for in the Rules — Rule 18-2a. Under Rules 16-1b and 20-1, a ball on the putting green may be lifted (or touched and rotated) after its position has been marked. If the player had marked the position of the ball before rotating it, there would have been no penalty.
[/quote]
I see people do this all the time, and if I used an alignment mark on a ball, I'd do it too, just to spite whoever wrote that Decision.

[Sawgrass]

Dave, I particularly enjoy your stating that no one plays by the rules, and then using that false statement as part of your futher arguments.

And your "physical impossibility" claim is really entertaining too.

Tell the truth. Are you really Ashton Kutcher, punking us?

[Socrates]

[i][size="3"]Posted Yesterday, 08:13 PM [/size][/i]

[i]Socrates said:There a millions of golfers that have a very good working knowledge of the rules and successfully play by them every day. I seem to watch many golfers every week on TV that adhere to the rules (to the letter) and seem to play quite well[/i][i][size="3"]. [/size][/i]

[size="3"][b][i]No, they don't, because as I mentioned, it is physically impossible to play the game according to all of the USGA rules as currently written[/i][/b][i].[/i][/size]

[size="3"]I guess then what I see on TV and the people I play with is a hallucination. [/size]

[i]Socrates said:[/i]

[i]Many avid golfers don't have a good working knowledge of all the rules but they unknowingly use Rule 1-4 and do what seems fair based on their knowledge of the game. If they had a better knowledge of the fundamental rules, they could most assuredly make their golf experience better as there are more instances where the rules help you than hurt you[/i][i][size="3"].[/size][/i]

[b][i][size="3"] [/size][/i][/b]

[size="3"][b][i]I don't believe your last sentence is true, in comparison to the way most golfers golf. Most golfers take gimmes, drops in favorable locations, and almost never take more than a 1 stroke penalty for anything. The rules will often help you compared to playing the ball as it lies everywhere and taking stroke-and-distance whenever you can't... but one one plays that way[/i][/b][i].[/i][/size]

[size="3"]A very confusing statement, IMO[/size]

[i]Socrates said:[/i]

[i]The Decisions are not constantly re-written as most of them are decades old with only a few additions (sometimes deletions) or revisions every few years. Most of the decisions come about because of the rare event happening and for the most part, never come into play in a normal round - ever. I bet I haven't had a situation arise in years where I had to haul out the rule book to figure out my options. Nearly everything is covered using common sense and a little knowledge on how the rules work[/i][i][size="3"].[/size][/i]

[i]
[b][size="3"]Well if so many of the rules are unnecessary, let's get rid of them, and use 1-4 to cover those situations. I think 1-4 can definitely be said to 'use common sense'... but some of the rest of the 'book, definitely not so much.[/size][/b][/i]

[size="3"]I didn’t say that the rules were unnecessary, but that most rules are common sense and most rarely come up except for rare circumstances.[/size]

[i]Socrates said:[/i]

[i]I would disagree that the rules have made the game "evermore complex, and unplayable, and frankly, less enjoyable". The fundamental rules have had only a few changes in decades and most are just clarifications on existing rules. You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to employ the rules, just a few hours reading the rule book (not the Decisions - just the Rules) will give you more than enough understanding to play by the rules and enjoy it.[/i]

[i]

<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">[size="3"]The rules certainly don't make the game more complex, etc... because no one plays by them. If they did, it'd be a mess.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">[/size]</B>[/i]

[size="3"]Don’t know how you can state that no one plays by them, but maybe you need to start playing with a more informed group of people.[/size]

[b][i]
[size="3"]And you most certainly do need to read the Decisions, because they often conflict the Rule, or add unanticipated complexity. For example, Decision 20-3a/2 directly contradicts Rule 8-2b. [/size][/i][/b]

[size="3"]Rule 8-2b deals with making a mark on the GREEN to indicate the line of play. It has nothing to do with placing a mark on the ball which is what 20-3a/2 deals with. [/size]

[b][i][size="3"]For what it's worth... you can honestly say that your common sense agrees with this one?[/size][/i][/b]

[size="3"][b][i]Rules said:
18-2a/33 Rotating Ball on Putting Green Without Marking Position

Q. A player rotates his ball on the putting green to line up the trademark with the hole. He did not lift the ball, mark its position or change its position. Is there a penalty?

A. Yes, one stroke for touching the ball other than as provided for in the Rules — Rule 18-2a. Under Rules 16-1b and 20-1, a ball on the putting green may be lifted (or touched and rotated) after its position has been marked. If the player had marked the position of the ball before rotating it, there would have been no penalty[/i][/b][i].[/i][/size]

[b][i]
[size="3"]I see people do this all the time, and if I used an alignment mark on a ball, I'd do it too, just to spite whoever wrote that Decision[/size][/i][/b]

[size="3"] [/size]

[size="3"]Perfectly logical to me and should be automatic since you can’t touch/move your ball without it being marked. What’s not to understand?[/size]

[size="3"] [/size]

[size="3"]The further this discussion moves, it is quite obvious you have some difficulties with the Rules and you continue to make blanket statements that the game is impossible to play under the rules and no one plays by them, contrary to the obvious that people quite happily play by them every day. I would suggest that since you find them so convoluted and problematic that you take up another sport where you might find peace.[/size]

[KevCarter]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 June 2010 - 08:58 AM' timestamp='1276523898' post='2507799']
[size="3"]The further this discussion moves, it is quite obvious you have some difficulties with the Rules and you continue to make blanket statements that the game is impossible to play under the rules and no one plays by them, contrary to the obvious that people quite happily play by them every day. I would suggest that since you find them so convoluted and problematic that you take up another sport where you might find peace.[/size]
[/quote]

Personally, I'm looking into officiating bowling as our buddy Hillman suggested. Looks like a piece of cake, you never get cold, wet, or sun burned, and nobody would care if you have a beer while doing it...

Kevin

[David Hillman]

[QUOTE name='Sawgrass']
Dave, I particularly enjoy your stating that no one plays by the rules,
and then using that false statement as part of your futher arguments.
And your "physical impossibility" claim is really entertaining too.
Tell the truth. Are you really Ashton Kutcher, punking us?
[/QUOTE]

I'm not Ashton Kutcher.

The USGA Rules require that a golf club shaft be perfectly straight, no tolerance is allowed. They further require that the shaft bends "the same" in any direction along its longitudinal axis. It is not possible to manufacture a legal golf shaft, as a result. And, if you are playing with illegal clubs, as we all are, then clearly you cannot be said to be playing by the rules, can you?

Or, is that one of the rules that we can skip?

[David Hillman]

[QUOTE name='Socrates']
Rule 8-2b deals with making a mark on the GREEN to indicate the line of
play. It has nothing to do with placing a mark on the ball which is
what 20-3a/2 deals with.
[/QUOTE]

That may be your interpretation, but the rule actually states;

"A mark must not be placed anywhere to indicate a line for putting."

If you want to redefine 'anywhere', we're going to need a really large Definitions section to keep track of what words now mean.

[QUOTE name='Socrate']
Perfectly logical to me and should be automatic since you cant
touch/move your ball without it being marked. Whats not to understand?
[/QUOTE]

I understand it fine, it's just an unnecessary waste of a rule. There is no advantage in rotating the ball without marking it, it's just an opportunity for someone with little self-respect to call a needless penalty on an unnecessary rule. That is not something that the Rules of a gentleman's game should encourage.

[QUOTE name='Socrates']
I would suggest that since you find them so convoluted and
problematic that you take up another sport where you might find peace.
[/QUOTE]

Ironically, I got back into playing golf because I got tired of Rulebook Lawyers in racing. In virtually all other sports, the term 'Rulebook Lawyer' or similar is derogatory, and refers to people who cannot win or compete on their own skill, so they focus instead of rulebook minutiae in the hopes of springing a surprise penalty on their competitor and 'winning'. I was victimized by a such a 'competitor' at a National event, and it left a very bad taste. I thought maybe a more gentlemanly game would suit me... imagine my shock at learning 'Rulebook Lawyers' are venerated in this game.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='14 June 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1276532145' post='2508094']
[QUOTE name='Sawgrass']
Dave, I particularly enjoy your stating that no one plays by the rules,
and then using that false statement as part of your futher arguments.
And your "physical impossibility" claim is really entertaining too.
Tell the truth. Are you really Ashton Kutcher, punking us?
[/QUOTE]

I'm not Ashton Kutcher.

The USGA Rules require that a golf club shaft be perfectly straight, no tolerance is allowed. They further require that the shaft bends "the same" in any direction along its longitudinal axis. It is not possible to manufacture a legal golf shaft, as a result. And, if you are playing with illegal clubs, as we all are, then clearly you cannot be said to be playing by the rules, can you?

Or, is that one of the rules that we can skip?
[/quote]

Once again you make false claims about the rules and then, based on those false claims, criticize them. Perhaps this is fun for you, but it is a disservice to others.

Certainly, club design and manufacture rules for which "no tolerance is allowed" would be impractical. Interestingly though, the rule does not say that.

That said, I encourage you to skip all the rules you wish. But please be more kind in your statements about Rulebook Lawyers. From your writings here I suspect that they may very well have more integrity in making their arguments than do you.

[David Hillman]

This'll be my last post on this topic.

[QUOTE name='Rules']
a. Straightness

The shaft must be straight from the top of the grip to a point not more than 5 inches (127 mm) above the sole, measured from the point where the shaft ceases to be straight along the axis of the bent part of the shaft and the neck and/or socket (see Fig. V).
...
b. Bending and Twisting Properties

At any point along its length, the shaft must:

(i) bend in such a way that the deflection is the same regardless of how the shaft is rotated about its longitudinal axis; and

(ii) twist the same amount in both directions.
...
When the club is in a 60 degree lie angle, the moment
of inertia component around the vertical axis through the clubhead's center of gravity must not exceed
5900 g cm (32.259 oz in), plus a test tolerance of
100 g cm (0.547 oz in).
[/QUOTE]

That last one was just for contrast. I suppose, if you want to kid yourself that the shaft rules allow something other than what is stated, that's your call. I'll continue to believe that the whole section, in fact, the whole book, could and should be written in a manner that allows golfers to play by the rules.

Have a good one.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='14 June 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1276542345' post='2508559']
. . . I suppose, if you want to kid yourself that the shaft rules allow something other than what is stated, that's your call. I'll continue to believe that the whole section, in fact, the whole book, could and should be written in a manner that allows golfers to play by the rules.

[/quote]

You make the claim that all shafts are illegal because all shafts are microscopically imperfect/dissimilar. Then [u]you[/u] accuse [u]me[/u] of kidding myself!

Really?

I liked this discussion better when I thought you were Ashton Kutcher.

[Socrates]

[quote name='David Hillman' date='14 June 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1276542345' post='2508559']
This'll be my last post on this topic.

[/quote]

Good to hear!

[boo radley]

The specifics of David Hillman's points aside, I would bet that - out of all all the rounds of golf played last weekend, for example - a fraction of 1 percent were played in accordance to the Rules of Golf.

Something has been broken for a very long time.

[Sawgrass]

The game of golf, played by the rules, is a demanding one. I don't know about "a fraction of 1 percent", but I do suspect that there aren't an overwhelming number of people who can face the reality of what they would shoot if they did things according to Hoyle. IMO, that which is "broken" is simply many people's willingness to perservere.

While I believe this to be true, I think it's a shame, because if people simply adjusted their expectations and played by the rules, they would have a more valid basis upon which to judge their progress.

[dukedsp]

What I find amusing in this discussion is the argument that people (some or most; whatever you believe) do not play by the "Rules of Golf" because they are too complex. Then to support this position they use examples of people breaking very easily understood rules. Gimmies, playing the ball up and touching the ball without marking it.

Sawgrass nailed it. The people that break those rules don't do it because of complexity. Vanity "caps" abound because people want a lower handicap or want to feel like they are better then thay are and get it through playing the ball up and gimmies to name a few. I also think that laziness comes into play as some people don't even read the rules of golf which means complexity isn't an issue since they haven't looked at them.

[stevestrike]

[quote name='dukedsp' date='15 June 2010 - 07:30 AM' timestamp='1276605011' post='2510310']
What I find amusing in this discussion is the argument that people (some or most; whatever you believe) do not play by the "Rules of Golf" because they are too complex. Then to support this position they use examples of people breaking very easily understood rules. Gimmies, playing the ball up and touching the ball without marking it.
[/quote]I can only assume you are talking about me here, since those are some of the things I said. However, you took what I said out of context and that's not the point I was trying to make. But I'm glad I could be "amuse" you.

Besides that, one thing I was not doing is agreeing with David here!