[petermo]

An interesting treatise on the evolution of the common law but probably conjecture with respect to the evolution of the rules particularly insofar as the probable involvement of lawyers is concerned. For a start the rules are far too concise and unambivalent for lawyers to have been involved and, as far as the structure is concerned, far too logical.

Furthermore, the back cover of the rules of golf (as approved by R&A Rules Ltd) makes the following statement-

Play the ball as it lies
Play the course as you find it
And if you can't do either, do what is fair
But to do what is fair, you need to
Know the Rules of Golf

And if you can't do either, do what is fair is the key phrase from which the rules have evolved. Examples abound and almost every one has to do with either playing the ball as it lies or the course as you find it. There is only one reference to equity (1-4) and that is only to deal with any dispute not covered by the Rules.

In the majority of cases the rules are designed to ensure that no player gains an unfair advantage over another and that there is no room for cheating or dispute.

Come to think of it are we sure Moses didn't bring a copy down from Mt Sinai?