Quote:
Originally Posted by Johneli
atticus; I take no issue with you at all, but this is what bothers me about golf and many golfers in general. Think about what football would be like without an introspective look at the sport and then making adjustments periodically. Ie. Instant replay, more stringent penalties for roughing passer etc.
Why should golf be any different? Why don't we analyze this game and look for improvements instead of just accepting everything that's come before as set in stone? Why have rules that defy logic just because they exist and have existed for some time? Why not let common sense dictate changes that will make newcomers to the game say,"you know what...that makes sense to me!"
So, with no offense intended, who cares if something has been on the books for a long time? I think it's time to start streamlining the game itself like we have the equipment.
Just think where we would be if we had stuck with the original equipment instead of using common sense to implement change just because wooden shafts and clubheads had been around for awhile?
|
As said before, the rules are modified all the time. This past year has several rules changed -- changed for the better in my mind. I like that now you can lift your ball in a hazard for identification purposes and there is a penalty for hitting the wrong one. This made the rule the same across the whole course, and not different for being in a hazard -- there is now a penalty for hitting the wrong ball no matter where on the course you are.
But, a lot of these rules are there to protect the integrity of the game. The ball moving after you address it is a penalty on you because of the difficulty to determine the true cause otherwise. Players would be nudging the grass so the ball rolls to better lies all the time and then claiming it was the wind or just the grass settling. The door is too wide open for abuse. So, the rule is written to make it as easy as possible to make decision -- you took you address and the ball moved? It's a penalty, done.
Same thing with the divots in the fairway. Rather than having to decide how damaged the divot hole is, how old it is, how regrown it is -- basically deciding if it is a divot or not, the rules are written to make it as simple as possible. You hit your ball where it lies or take a penalty to move it. Done.
I tried to invite responses above, though no one took me up on it. I suspect that the rules makers actually would like to provide relief from divot holes. But, they further understand that just saying you get free relief from divot holes opens the door for lots of abuse. Any bare patch or ridge or depression or tuft of grass growing the wrong way will be called "an old divot" by an unscrupulous player, so they can get the perfect lie. So, the question I asked, and probably the question the rules committee would like to ask is, how do you define when a divot hole stops being a divot hole and goes back to just being grass? You can't define it by age, because who knows how long it really has been there -- are you going to put a clock or calender out on the fairway? You can't define it by amount of length of grass -- do you really want people counting or measuring the length of the growing grass out on the fairway? How do open the door to allow relief from divot holes without also blowing open the door for all sorts of abuse?
If you or anyone can answer that -- if you can define the line between divot hole and not divot hole very clearly and in a way that is very easily determinable out on the course -- then let's hear it. A very clear and easy definition would probably be of interest to the rules committees because then something could indeed be done. However, I think that you will find that the clear and easy definition is elusive, because if it was so clear and easy to define, it probably would have been done already.
The rules aren't sacrosanct. I think that you neglect to notice how many rules changes have been made over the years. But, the rules are also there to make refereeing the game -- on yourself in particular -- as easy as possible. That means minimizing the amount of judgment calls needed, because, let's face it, whenever there is a judgment call, people naturally lean toward the outcome they want. I don't think I have to give this example, but if you're out playing with a fellow competitor, do you really want to sit there and argue with him over every little bump or scrape or ridge in the fairway whether it is an old divot or not? I certainly don't. But, that's what this will turn into if you open these doors to the potential abuse. The rules are made so that you don't have to argue over things, at least as much as possible. The ball is either in bounds or out of bounds, there is no judging. The ball is either in a bunker or it isn't. The ball is either on the green or it isn't. The ball is either in the cup, or it isn't. There are no judgment calls in golf. You don't have to watch whether the ball lands fair or foul or for a strike or a ball or whether the runner beat the throw or not, like in baseball, or whether the receiver kept his feet in or the QB crossed the line or scrimmage before he threw, in football. Golf is very easy in this regard -- you walk up, find your ball, and see where it is. The rules of golf do not care how it got there, only where it came to rest. In this regard, it is an exceptionally easy sport to regulate, and the rules have helped that by eliminating all the judgment calls where both sides of the argument can be argued. Introduce relief from divot holes and no fault ball moving when you've taken you address and you introduce judgment calls into the game and you make it significantly harder to referee. I think the rules at the moment do an excellent job of eliminating as many judgment calls as possible and thusly make the game as easy to referee as possible.