Equity

[atticusfinch]

The terms 'equity' equitable' in equity' have been bandied about in another thread and show a basic misunderstandeing of what the term means in therules of golf, so I thought I would start anew thread. (The 'last page' of that thread has been going on for four pages.) I mean no offense to the position or argument taken by other posters.

The rules of golf were written by people from great britian and the usa for many years. The drafters were educated people experienced in british law and many were doubtless lawyers. They relied on their experience with the british common law, which is clearly the basis for the structure of the rules.

Today's rule 1-4 says situations not covered by the rules are to be decided "in equity."

This is not a casually chosen phrase. You will note that it does not say 'decided equitably' or that the decision will be 'equitable.' It says the decisions will be decided 'in equity.'

This is an echo of a time in the British common law that marked a departure in the manner that legal cases were decided. It was the intent of the drafters of the rules of golf to apply the same common law principles to the rules. What was that?

Initially to understand this issue, we must divest ourselves of the compulsion to define terms by their common meaning. Equity means fairness or equality to most people, and of course that was the guiding principle behind the evolution of equity courts (discussed below) but the terms "in equity" and "equity court" have their own unique meanings. So, in a court of equity or when discussing the rules of golf, the terms equitable or equity do not necessarily mean what we want it to.

It all began with King Henry II. If you saw the movie Becket, you have seen a dramatisation of the start. Henry II is called the father of the common law. Initially there was only one way an agrieved person could vindicate his rights, and that was by stating a case based on a rigid definition, and following rigid court rules, that if done properly would get the case before the king's court.

As society developed, it became apparent that disputes among citizens often would not fit the rigid rule of the king's court and he could not have his case heard. SO the king created the Chancery Court or Equity Court. This court had less rigid rules and a wider range of powers that would resolve disputes on an "equitable" basis rather than on the strict dictates of the king's law courts. These two systems came to be known as the "law" court and the "chancery" or "equity" court. (Today we often hear the term "heard in a court of law" and do not realize this is a vestige of the distinction between law and equity courts started 1000 years ago.

Many jurisdictions have "merged" law and equity so the same judge can hear both kinds of cases. Previously, a law judge could not hear an equity case and vise versa. But the conceptual distinction still exists. If you sue for damages for breach of contract, you are suing in law. If you sue to force specific performance of a contract, you are suing in equity. But in most jurisdictions, the same judge will hear both cases.

What does it mean that a case is decided "in equity?" It means basically this: if the case does not fit the restrictions of a law case, the chancery judge will make a decision based on the equities of the case. These are not simp.ly a license for the chancellor to decide a case on his whim, it means that the case will be decided on a set of principles, called equity maxims, that have been deveiloped over the years. But basically, IMHO, these maxims boil down to a simple equation: If the kings law court did provide a remedy for this situation, what would it be?

In otherwords, the chancellor must examine the common law and decide how his case would be decided if the common law provided a remedy. Not an easy job.

By analogy is the rules of golf are the common law of the king. They have a similar rigidity when subjected to interpretation. IN otherwords a rules official cannot impose his view about the fairness of a rule. He must enforce it to the letter. A ball that touches the boundary of a water hazard is in the hazard. There is nothing he can do about it. He is bound by the letter of the rule.

Rule 1-4 was created to help solve situations that could not be solved by reference to the rules alone. The choice of the term "in equity" makes this clear. The rule is not intended to give license to officials or players to decided if a rule is equitable or not, it was intendee to provide an official or commitee with a way to solve a problem within the rules that would fall short of saying..."well, the rules don't address it,, so you are out of luck." That's not fair. The player deserves a ruling. So one is devised that takes into account the same guidelines a court of equity follows: "If there were a law/rule that addressed this circumstance, what would it say?"

Clearly this question goes beyond the official's personal biased views, it requires him to objectivly evaluate the case and make a fair ruling "in equity."

This is probably more and less than I intended to write. But I tire.

Doubtless, some lawyers will disagree. I welcome their correction.

[Wazmankg]

I'm sure I strongly disagree and I'll explain why in depth after I actually read it. That's way too many words for a Friday night.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I'm sure I strongly disagree and I'll explain why in depth after I actually read it. That's way too many words for a Friday night.

Kinda sad that you would disagree becasue i wrote it instead of what I wrote. I guess that is the nature of these boards.

[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?

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Kinda sad that you would disagree becasue i wrote it instead of what I wrote. I guess that is the nature of these boards.

I wish you'd lighten up a bit, AF but then you probably wouldn't be the guy who provides us with such well researched insights. FWIW, I was just kidding...as I thought the "too many words" comment made clear. I understand what "equity" means as it pertains to the rules of golf, but thanks for the background and history lesson... and I mean that sincerely.

[coralpro]

I'm so confused now.
Equity is not the same thing as In Equity and fairness is not the same as In Fairness. I'll follow the rules til something isn't covered, then I'll make a decision as though I was a member of the supreme court and adjust my decision over who pays me the most money.

[petermo]

Originally Posted by coralpro

I'm so confused now.

Now?

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by petermo

Now?

Perhaps the text I was referring to was ambiguous and it will take some time to sort it out so I may be Unconfused. The now fit the time of present.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Perhaps the text I was referring to was ambiguous and it will take some time to sort it out so I may be Unconfused. The now fit the time of present.

CP - just reading some of your posts makes us join you in your confusion. I would think that was your intention if I didn't know how confused you usually are.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Diane

CP - just reading some of your posts makes us join you in your confusion. I would think that was your intention if I didn't know how confused you usually are.

Confusion is the first step to learning. You should try it. You might find it very rewarding. If I can be of further help in clarifying anything else, feel free to buzz me.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Confusion is the first step to learning. You should try it. You might find it very rewarding. If I can be of further help in clarifying anything else, feel free to buzz me.

There isn't going to be any "buzzing" - trust me on that.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by coralpro

If I can be of further help in clarifying anything else, feel free to buzz me.

A good "buzz" is what it might take to cipher some of your ramblings.

[CG8]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

A good "buzz" is what it might take to cipher some of your ramblings.

I got a buzz rightnow . Dinner and drinks

Sorry atticusfinch

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I'm sure I strongly disagree and I'll explain why in depth after I actually read it. That's way too many words for a Friday night.

Or any night for that matter .

atticusfinch did you really type all of that ?

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by CG8

atticusfinch did you really type all of that ?

You betcha, and it took over an hour, with a little fortification from adult beverages.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

You betcha, and it took over an hour, with a little fortification from adult beverages.

Well thank you for taking the time to type it AF - I enjoyed it as I enjoy all of your posts. It's nice to have a voice of reason here.

[Fourputt]

Yes, definitely the comprehensive treatise on equity. Since our discussions here have so clearly exposed so many of the popular misconceptions about how equity is applied to the rules, such a discourse can certainly clarify the history and reasoning behind that application. But..... only if those who actually need the education take the time to read it.

Now it's time for AF to get cracking on his essay entitled "Rub of the Green - What is it Again???"

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

A good "buzz" is what it might take to cipher some of your ramblings.

I've found that reading every 3rd word of some of his longer ones helps.

[CG8]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

You betcha, and it took over an hour, with a little fortification from adult beverages.

Good job . I know we don't see eye to eye on being able to pick a ball out of a divot and place it on the fairway and I liked the point you made earlier when I said you could make a divot worse by hitting out of it and you stated it's better than creating another one .

That was a good point BUT I still don't agree with this rule . No need getting worked up about it because it will never change

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

A good "buzz" is what it might take to cipher some of your ramblings.

I haven't rambled since we traded off the Rambler American but thanks for bringing back good memories.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Now it's time for AF to get cracking on his essay entitled "Rub of the Green - What is it Again???"

You asked for it.

Probable Origins of "Rub of the Green" in Golf

The term "rub of the green" is defined in the Rules of Golf as the accidental deflection of a ball in motion by an outside agency. Despite this clarity, many argue that the term is more general, meaning "bad luck." Thus, they might say, a ball that ends up in a hazard is a rub of the green. Despite this general belief, there is no authority for the proposition that "rub" in any context has a connection with luck, good or bad.

Where did it come from? The game of bowls has the probable answer.

The Game of Bowls. (Also lawn bowling, boules, bocce, bolla.)

There is evidence that this game has been in existence since Roman times, and some evidence beyond. It is played on a flat area of ground (green) and involves rolling or throwing balls (bowls) to a target ball (the jack) on the other side of the green, the object being get as close as possible to the jack. Some types of bowls are weighted asymmetrically (biased) so they will curve when thrown, more severely so when slowing down. The game is believed to have come to Great Britain’s greens with the Normans, though there is no evidence of it. The oldest known bowls green in the UK is in Southampton and dates from 1299, still exists today. The similarity between bowls and golf, particularly in the rules and terminology should not go unnoticed by the serious student of either game. (More on the similarity between the rules will follow.)

Webster’s 1913* revised, unabridged dictionary defines "rub" as follows:
1. The act of rubbing; friction.
2. That which rubs; that which tends to hinder or obstruct motion or progress; hindrance; obstruction, an impediment; especially, a difficulty or obstruction hard to overcome; a pinch.
Every rub is smoothed on our way. --Shak.
To sleep, perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub.--Shak.
Upon this rub, the English ambassadors thought fit to demur.--Hayward.
One knows not, certainly, what other rubs might have been ordained for us by a wise Providence. --W. Besant.
3. Inequality of surface, as of the ground in the game of bowls; unevenness.
The Oxford English Dictionary (1931)* defines rub more specifically in the context of bowls:

An obstacle or impediment by which a bowl is hindered in, or diverted from its proper course; also the fact of the bowl meeting with such impediment.

The Universal Dictionary of the English Language (Colliers, 1897)* provides a very interesting look at the meaning of the term in those times with specific reference to bowls:

3. To incline or turn in towards the jack.
4. Inequality of the ground which hinders the motion of the bowl.

The term "green" als