Why do we Question?

[Fourputt]

I constantly find it a bit ridiculous that golfers seem to be the only only sports participants who so aggressively have to challenge any rule that doesn't fit into their personal sense of logic. Never mind that there is logic... if they can't see it or won't believe it, then it doesn't seem to apply.

I ask, "Why do the rules have to fit into any sense of logic?" They define a game, and there is nothing in those rules that even say they have to be based on a logical premise. Why can't you move your ball out of a divot? Why is the penalty for OB stroke and distance? Why is... yada yada yada? Because that's how the rules say it is. That should be enough.... the rules define the game.

Why do you get 4 balls but only 3 strikes in baseball? Why not 4 strikes and 3 balls? Why is the pitcher's mound restricted to 60 feet from home plate and 10.5" high, but the outfield fence can be just about any distance and any height? Because that's how the rules of baseball say it's going to be. And for some odd reason, baseball players seem to accept it. Why can't golfers?

[coralpro]

Why? Because we can and noone says the person that invented was all knowing. Rules are only made to be changed until all seems to find its' balance. Why did the rule change this year to penalize a person for hitting the wrong ball out of a bunker? Because they could and in reality makes sense as it should have been in the first place. We can only play by the rules, whatever they may be, so don't fight changes.

[Wazmankg]

Well in the 1st place what people take exception with are penalty infractions. Why is a personal foul a 15 yard penalty, would be a more appropriate analogy. The 3 strike & 4 balls example would be analogous to why is a hole a par 3,4 or 5 ? We assume ...no, we know that there were seemingly logical reasons upon which these rules were originally based. What's wrong with revisiting them and examining the rationale behind them ? The various ruling organizations do it every year right ?

[coralpro]

I think one only has to go over the rule changes of the R&A to see that many a rule has been changed then changed back and then modified again from its' original intent. I have always been been disgruntled by an internal OB being stroke and distance when a lateral hazard only is stroke. If they were the same I would have no problem for what the penalty was. We have a narrow par 4 that has OB (internal) on the right and lateral down the left and both are marked the entire length of the hole. It penalizes a slicer more than one that draws the ball and if a person wants they can play a high shot left and play from another fairway on the other side of the lateral hazard then have an easy pitch over the trees back to the green. You can't do that if the ball goes 5 yds right of the fairway.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Well in the 1st place what people take exception with are penalty infractions. Why is a personal foul a 15 yard penalty, would be a more appropriate analogy. The 3 strike & 4 balls example would be analogous to why is a hole a par 3,4 or 5 ? We assume ...no, we know that there were seemingly logical reasons upon which these rules were originally based. What's wrong with revisiting them and examining the rationale behind them ? The various ruling organizations do it every year right ?

My point is that the rules governing all games are arbitrary. There is usually an underlying logic or principle that guides the setting of those rules, but in the end it is the rules that give definition and substance to any game. If those rules were changed every time someone questioned them the game would soon become unrecognizable. The Rules of Golf do change, but only by a structured and carefully guided process.

If we could look back 400 years through a window in time and watch Scottish shepherds batting stones around at rabbit holes, it would still resemble the game we play today.... a tenuous resemblance I admit, but none the less it would look like golf. By 1745 (or near then) when the first rules were put down on paper, the game was totally recognizable. Only 13 rules were documented then, and you played the ball as it lay almost exclusively, but it was clearly golf. Nearly every rule that has been modified or added since then has adhered as closely as was deemed equitable to the original and fundamental principles that you play your ball from tee to hole without touching it, and you play the course as you find it.

I don't see any way that one can reasonably question a rule without first measuring it against those 2 principles, and then applying equity. The farther we diverge from those principles, the less the game looks like golf. It must inevitably become some sort of simplified modification of the game that no longer meets what I call the 3rd basic principle (call it the Fourputt principle ), and that is, "Golf is supposed to be difficult!" Golf isn't about taking a stroll in the park. It's about bad lies and bad bounces, dealing with adversity as complacently as you do with good fortune.

These days everyone watches the pros on television and somehow gets the impression that they should get the same conditions as the guys on tour. You could.... if you were willing to pay $10,000.... $15,000 or more a year for dues in an exclusive club. That's the only way they could possibly afford to maintain a course at that level of conditioning. The less you are willing and able to pay, the rougher your course is going to be, and more adversity you are likely to face.

To me, the game of golf is about going to the course, paying my fee, walking to the first tee and looking with eager anticipation down that fairway. I don't care how many unrepaired divots there may be. I don't care that a coyote just trotted through that fairway bunker which I hit into with distressing regularity, leaving a neat row of preformed fried egg lies. And I certainly don't think about which rules I want to have changed today. All I want to do is hit my ball and start walking. When I get to the ball, I play whatever the golf gods have decreed for the next shot. I approach every round that way, and as a result, I can have fun on any track, any time.

I guess the difference between me and some of the others here is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and we are unlikely to find a common meeting ground. I have tried to give myself a good foundation on, and understanding of the history and principles of the rules, as well as knowing the correct application of the rules when I play. But in the end, I don't really care why they are written as they are, nor would I care if there was no fundamental logic to them. I would still play by the rules because otherwise it just isn't golf.

[Fileygolfer]

I discuss the RofG and sometimes find it strange to see the logic behind the WHOLE PICTURE.
But when I play, I play by the RofG set out by the R&A, USGA and all other Golf Associations.

If you want to Question a Rule in a Sport, try The Offside Rule in Soccer. Even the players and Managers of our Premier Teams don't understand it and neither do the Refs.

[OnePutt]

I happen to be one to those golfers that think it would be a good idea to allow a ball in a divot to be moved a few inches, and that would mean changing the rule as it now stands. Some of you don't agree with me, and that's fine. What I can't understand, is how most of those that disagree with me think they are correct, and I'm wrong. You have a right to your belief. And so do I. It's been stated over and over, that the rules have been changed many times. so what's the problem with making one more change for divots? Why can't divots be defined as "ground under repair"? It wouldn't be hard to do, and it would solve the argument. Of course that's just my opinion, and I have the right to have said opinion. What might be interesting would be to take a poll here, and see what the members of this site believe. As much as this subject comes up on this any all other golf forums I've visited, it would appear that a lot of golfers agree that we should be allowed to move the ball out of a divot, and that a divot should be considered ground under repair.

[Johneli]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

be

I ask, "Why do the rules have to fit into any sense of logic?" They define a game, and there is nothing in those rules that even say they have to be based on a logical premise.

Because logic defines the way we live. Why shouldn't it govern the way we play? Otherwise we would all be making decisions based on NOTHING but instinct......a recipe for disaster and wasted time. I have a problem with the "lemming" approach to the rules of golf.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by OnePutt

I happen to be one to those golfers that think it would be a good idea to allow a ball in a divot to be moved a few inches, and that would mean changing the rule as it now stands. Some of you don't agree with me, and that's fine. What I can't understand, is how most of those that disagree with me think they are correct, and I'm wrong. You have a right to your belief. And so do I. It's been stated over and over, that the rules have been changed many times. so what's the problem with making one more change for divots? Why can't divots be defined as "ground under repair"? It wouldn't be hard to do, and it would solve the argument. Of course that's just my opinion, and I have the right to have said opinion. What might be interesting would be to take a poll here, and see what the members of this site believe. As much as this subject comes up on this any all other golf forums I've visited, it would appear that a lot of golfers agree that we should be allowed to move the ball out of a divot, and that a divot should be considered ground under repair.

Um, that's kind of the way opinions work.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Johneli

Because logic defines the way we live. Why shouldn't it govern the way we play? Otherwise we would all be making decisions based on NOTHING but instinct......a recipe for disaster and wasted time. I have a problem with the "lemming" approach to the rules of golf.

Because golf isn't life. That is precisely the point I'm making here. Golf is a game, designed to be played under a premise based on a couple of simple principles, and the rules are built on those principles. Exceptions are only made for extreme extenuating circumstances. Since divot holes have been around forever, and have never been the impetus for a rule change, it's apparent to me that such circumstances aren't perceived to exist with divots.

But in the end, it's a game, and those underlying principles need have nothing to do with any real life logic. You have to use logic derived from the principles that define the game. Applying real life logic to any discussion about a game is quick path to irrationality and even insanity.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Johneli

Otherwise we would all be making decisions based on NOTHING but instinct.

We don't have to use instinct. The rules tell us how to play. that is what they are for. Why does it have to be logical?

[petermo]

Those who gripe about the rules always being against them are the first to take advantage of situations when they can use the rules. The divot issue is so simple it's laughable - every time one gets bum lie on the fairway it has to have been an 'old divot" - take a drop.

Some of us accept the rules and are pretty useful golfers others always want help and will never be golfers - that's the way it is.

These are the same people who want government to protect them from everything (including tornados etc) and who sue MacDonalds because they're so "darn" stupid as to drive a car with hot coffee between their legs.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by petermo

These are the same people who want government to protect them from everything (including tornados etc) and who sue MacDonalds because they're so "darn" stupid as to drive a car with hot coffee between their legs.

Assuming we are talking aobut the same hot coffee case, the injured lady was not driving nor was the car in motion, and the coffee was not simply hot, it was scalding...180 degrees fahrenheit which caused third degree burns over 7 percent of her body, groin, buttocks thighs. She was hospitalized for 8 days and had to have skin grafts.

The lady was found 20% responsible for her injuries. After the case, mcdonalds local store lowered coffee temps to 158 degrees.


But I guess most right thinking people would just take the skin grafts and write it up to experience.

[petermo]

It actually comes down to taking responsibility for oneself.

Coffee is supposed to be brewed/percolated at slightly less than boiling point - 100*C here and 212*F at sea level where F rules. 182*F is considerably lower than BP and if one applied the "reasonable man (PC - 'person')" test, the questions that should be asked are whether a "reasonable man" would:

a. expect freshly brewed coffee to be hot enough to burn if spilled;
b. put a flexible container between his legs;
c. when the accident happens, blame the supplier and sue!

Usually, one expects to "pay" (one way or another) for "self inflicted injuries" - most of which are the result of temporary stupidity.

This accident nearly qualified for the Darwin society's awards - hey, maybe some ambulance chaser can go and help the heirs out there too. See The Darwin Awards if you're a lawyer who likes Atticus' logic and needs the business

[Bigvivec]

This reminds me of a woman who complained to the french matrie d' at a restaurant I used to work in (true story)...

(As told by a waiter who observed the entire scene)

Woman: (Extremely irrate) The water in the bathroom sink is too hot...I burned my hands!!!

Matrie d': (Extremely French) Madame, most people choose to mix the hot with the cold when washing their hands...(walks away)

Classic!

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by petermo

It actually comes down to taking responsibility for oneself.

Coffee is supposed to be brewed/percolated at slightly less than boiling point - 100*C here and 212*F at sea level where F rules. 182*F is considerably lower than BP and if one applied the "reasonable man (PC - 'person')" test, the questions that should be asked are whether a "reasonable man" would:

a. expect freshly brewed coffee to be hot enough to burn if spilled;
b. put a flexible container between his legs;
c. when the accident happens, blame the supplier and sue!

Usually, one expects to "pay" (one way or another) for "self inflicted injuries" - most of which are the result of temporary stupidity.

This accident nearly qualified for the Darwin society's awards - hey, maybe some ambulance chaser can go and help the heirs out there too. See The Darwin Awards if you're a lawyer who likes Atticus' logic and needs the business

180 degrees was not the brewing temp, it was the temp at which it was served. McDonalds own people testified that tem p would cause burns to your mouth.

[Texas Wedge]

From the letter sent to me by the USGA members program with the new rule book ...

While the fundamental principals remain unchanged from the first edition of "The Rules of Golf" compiled in 1744, the changes to the Rules generally fall into two broad categories: (1) those that improve the clarity of the Rules and (2) those that reduce the penalties in certain circumstances to ensure that they are proportionate.

It's a good thing the USGA is willing to QUESTION the rules to see if they can improve them in some way. Otherwise we'd be playing with the same rules they started with in 1744.

I don't think people are saying the rules are stupid and everything should be made easier so that there are basically no penalties in golf. They're just looking at certain rules and trying to gauge the appropriateness as it pertains to certain situations. They're looking for ways to possibly improve the game even more. That said, I (and probably everyone else) am content to play by the rules as they are now. But I am glad the USGA considers the rules every year and attempts to improve them on the behalf of all golfers.

[bignose]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

180 degrees was not the brewing temp, it was the temp at which it was served. McDonalds own people testified that tem p would cause burns to your mouth.

I don't mean to be antagonistic here, but atticus, what you're saying is that McDonald's should tell the customer. "Oh, we just brewed a fresh pot, but we have to wait 30 mins for it to cool down before we can give it to you." Or is that even what they do now? Or is it more that the McDonald's server should have warned that it was freshly brewed?

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by bignose

I don't mean to be antagonistic here, but atticus, what you're saying is that McDonald's should tell the customer. "Oh, we just brewed a fresh pot, but we have to wait 30 mins for it to cool down before we can give it to you." Or is that even what they do now? Or is it more that the McDonald's server should have warned that it was freshly brewed?

McDonald's fault was not a failure to warn the customer, it was that they held the temperature at a level that they knew from years of experience was dangerous if spilled.