We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Are the current Rules of Golf helping or hurting the game of golf?

In my view the "as close as possible" infamous drop drama was (in real time) and in the future will be bad for golf. I assume this is not merely a Augusta rule. Since this language is vague I can foresee players wasting time by calling over a rules official in order to get a drop approval to see if the spot where the ball came to rest is close enough. Golf does not need this type of minutia and distractions.
It would be far easier to have an identifiable distance such as drop within one club length. That way biased and stupid talking heads like Chamblee and people enjoying some drinks while sitting at home on their lazy boys with a rule book would be precluded from trying to add to the drama and division.
The golf industry needs a bigger following than it currently has, smart changes are needed
 
Rules need to be simplified.. One thing I have noticed is that new players taking up golf that I play with have no idea what the rules in golf are simply because they find it too complicated to read.
 
NavyMustang said:
OK, I see what your saying. 33-7 was put into place apparently to keep guys from getting DQd. I would guess the committee looked at it as an exceptional circumstance because they had the ability to stop him before signing it and they didn't (still don't see how they looked at the video and called it a valid drop) and because DQ was the only possible penalty they had the ability to waive it.

I'm no Tiger hater, but I think the bigger issue in this whole thing is that while the rules give the committee the ability to waive the DQ, "the spirit of the game" however abstract that is, basically requires a golfer to self impose. I can see Joe Average Pro accepting a decision like this and playing on because he's just trying to earn a living and keep his card. Tiger is trying to rehabilitate an image, and DQing himself would have gone a long way towards restoring some semblance of his integrity in a lot of peoples eyes. Its pretty obvious that Tiger doesn't really care what the public thinks about him, has no desire to be a role model, and is simply a stone-cold assassin of a golfer. Class, grace and gravitas he has not. He's a blast to watch when he is on fire, but he's sure not someone to emulate.
Click to expand...

Why should Tiger really care about what the public feels about him? I watch him as a golf fan not as someone I want to be like. I think this is the problem with people who want all professional athletes to be role models it isn't going to happen. Look at Michael Jordan or Charles Barkley these guys gambled and who knows what else, but they seem to get a pass. I want my kids to look up to me and my family not professional athletes who they will never know.
 
Here is an interview with Fred Ridley which will clear up the issue from the committee's point of view:

Ridley interview
 
here is the big issue wth this.
Tigers card was signed, handed in and accepted. Once accepted that should have been it. Here is what I mean.
They should have done one of two things. Hear me out.

Iether say that he missed it and we missed and its too late for anything now since the card was signed and also accepted without penalties.

If they are going to assess a penalty afterwards then they cant do so without doing both the penalty and the incorrect score card sitution . If they are to say after the fact that he is now guilty then he must be guilty of both.

He can not be guilty of the penalty and at the same time be innocent of handing in the wrong score card even if the penalty was assessed later.

They should have just let it all go or made everything stick, There cant be or shouldnt be an inbetween. If it was found he was guilty of one he has to be guilty of the other.

They should have just said it doesnt matter. He missed it and we also missed it and thats the way it goes. It already ended and was accepted therefore it is over and no penalty can now be added.

It has to be all or nothing and should not be an inbetween.
 
You are wrong, but I guess nobody is ever going to convince you of that. Rule 33-7 says that they have the discretion to waive the DQ penalty when there are mitigating circumstances, but they are not allowed to waive the stroke penalty. This is exactly the sort of instance the rule is written for.
 
Fourputt said:
You are wrong, but I guess nobody is ever going to convince you of that. Rule 33-7 says that they have the discretion to waive the DQ penalty when there are mitigating circumstances, but they are not allowed to waive the stroke penalty. This is exactly the sort of instance the rule is written for.
Click to expand...

Does it say anywhere how long they have to impose the penalty? What's the statute of limitations on it?
 
your probably right Fourputt. But it says in exceptional case it may be waived.
When they state (even if after the fact) that he is guilty of the improper drop and impose such penalty then what is so exceptional about it? They say he is guilty so there is nothing exceptional about it. Its pretty black and white. You say he is gulty then he is guilty of it all.
If tiger questioned the situation when handing in his card then was told it was fine, that would be an exceptional situation. I could see the waive option rule for that purpose but not this. They were better to just say its too late and thats it. It was missed by him and also us and it was over.
 
When I was a kid I was taught the following. If you do these I think 99% of the time you will be within the rule.

1. Play the ball as it lies.
2. If you can't play the ball as it lies, do what's fair.

The uproar from us older guys re Tiger comes from the fact that it's always been if you sign a wrong score card you are either DQ'd if the score was lower than what you actually made or forced to record the higher score if it was higher than you actually scored. Apparently they (still don't know if it was the USGA or the PGA Tour, or just the Masters) changed the rule a couple of years ago and didn't tell any of the fans. So it looks like they did what they could to keep Tiger in the tournament. I'm glad he didn't win because god forbid he did and then beat Jack by one major. If he is going to beat Jack let him do it without controversy.

It's my opinion Tiger could have made a huge PR move by DQ'ing himself. After all of his integrity issues I think he would have brought many people back into his camp if he had. A lot of young people don't realize that Roberto De Vicenzo actually was tied for first at the end of 72 holes at the masters but signed for a 66 when he actually shot 65. The 66 stood and he lost by a shot.

blugold said:
Many of the older players were calling for a WD. I haven't heard from a current tour player saying WD. I'm sure there's some.

The rules need to be simplified.
Click to expand...
 
uman said:
It would be far easier to have an identifiable distance such as drop within one club length. That way biased and stupid talking heads like Chamblee and people enjoying some drinks while sitting at home on their lazy boys with a rule book would be precluded from trying to add to the drama and division.
The golf industry needs a bigger following than it currently has, smart changes are needed
Click to expand...

This is what I always thought the rule was. Always drop within one club length. Obvioulsy it's different for different circumstances. But with the whole Tiger thing, his drive (including head) is pretty near 4'. If he dropped at roughly 5' or 6' I would personally consider that "close enough" especially since "close enough" isn't defined. And really, there aren't many people on tour that would gain an advantage by going back a distance as small as 5 or 6'.
 
rollin said:
here is the big issue wth this.
Tigers card was signed, handed in and accepted. Once accepted that should have been it. Here is what I mean.
They should have done one of two things. Hear me out.

Iether say that he missed it and we missed and its too late for anything now since the card was signed and also accepted without penalties.

If they are going to assess a penalty afterwards then they cant do so without doing both the penalty and the incorrect score card sitution . If they are to say after the fact that he is now guilty then he must be guilty of both.

He can not be guilty of the penalty and at the same time be innocent of handing in the wrong score card even if the penalty was assessed later.

They should have just let it all go or made everything stick, There cant be or shouldnt be an inbetween. If it was found he was guilty of one he has to be guilty of the other.

They should have just said it doesnt matter. He missed it and we also missed it and thats the way it goes. It already ended and was accepted therefore it is over and no penalty can now be added.

It has to be all or nothing and should not be an inbetween.
Click to expand...

They couldn't do that because there has been precedent set in the past. Similar situation happened a number of years ago at Pebble Beach. Stadler was in the lead on Saturday and hit his ball under a low lying try. There was a lot of sap on the grass so he laid down a towel so he didn't ruin his pants. Nobody said anything, he signed his scorecard. The next day he was penalized for building a stance and DQ'd.

They (USGA, PGA Tour, R&A, The Masters) should have let everyone know when they changed the rule. To me it just smells like they where doing everything they could to keep Tiger in the tournament. I know it's impossible but I would love to see how they would have reacted if it was someone else.
 
fireitup said:
When I was a kid I was taught the following. If you do these I think 99% of the time you will be within the rule.

1. Play the ball as it lies.
2. If you can't play the ball as it lies, do what's fair.

The uproar from us older guys re Tiger comes from the fact that it's always been if you sign a wrong score card you are either DQ'd if the score was lower than what you actually made or forced to record the higher score if it was higher than you actually scored. Apparently they (still don't know if it was the USGA or the PGA Tour, or just the Masters) changed the rule a couple of years ago and didn't tell any of the fans. So it looks like they did what they could to keep Tiger in the tournament. I'm glad he didn't win because god forbid he did and then beat Jack by one major. If he is going to beat Jack let him do it without controversy.

It's my opinion Tiger could have made a huge PR move by DQ'ing himself. After all of his integrity issues I think he would have brought many people back into his camp if he had. A lot of young people don't realize that Roberto De Vicenzo actually was tied for first at the end of 72 holes at the masters but signed for a 66 when he actually shot 65. The 66 stood and he lost by a shot.
Click to expand...

The USGA changed the rule in 2011.

What happened with Tiger is nothing like what happened with De Vicenzo. Totally different

Times change. Golf changes. Rules change. That isn't a bad thing.

Tiger was allowed to keep playing, as per the rules if golf. So he did. End of story.
 
I agree completely.


NavyMustang said:
OK, I see what your saying. 33-7 was put into place apparently to keep guys from getting DQd. I would guess the committee looked at it as an exceptional circumstance because they had the ability to stop him before signing it and they didn't (still don't see how they looked at the video and called it a valid drop) and because DQ was the only possible penalty they had the ability to waive it.

I'm no Tiger hater, but I think the bigger issue in this whole thing is that while the rules give the committee the ability to waive the DQ, "the spirit of the game" however abstract that is, basically requires a golfer to self impose. I can see Joe Average Pro accepting a decision like this and playing on because he's just trying to earn a living and keep his card. Tiger is trying to rehabilitate an image, and DQing himself would have gone a long way towards restoring some semblance of his integrity in a lot of peoples eyes. Its pretty obvious that Tiger doesn't really care what the public thinks about him, has no desire to be a role model, and is simply a stone-cold assassin of a golfer. Class, grace and gravitas he has not. He's a blast to watch when he is on fire, but he's sure not someone to emulate.
Click to expand...
 
I understand this. The only problem is that the rule change was not/has not been publicized so that people knew about it beforehand.


blugold said:
The USGA changed the rule in 2011.

What happened with Tiger is nothing like what happened with De Vicenzo. Totally different

Times change. Golf changes. Rules change. That isn't a bad thing.

Tiger was allowed to keep playing, as per the rules if golf. So he did. End of story.
Click to expand...
 
fireitup said:
I understand this. The only problem is that the rule change was not/has not been publicized so that people knew about it beforehand.
Click to expand...

I get it was publicized back 2011. I also think this is the first time 33-7 has been used not at least the most public use of the rule.
 
fireitup said:
They couldn't do that because there has been precedent set in the past. Similar situation happened a number of years ago at Pebble Beach. Stadler was in the lead on Saturday and hit his ball under a low lying try. There was a lot of sap on the grass so he laid down a towel so he didn't ruin his pants. Nobody said anything, he signed his scorecard. The next day he was penalized for building a stance and DQ'd.

They (USGA, PGA Tour, R&A, The Masters) should have let everyone know when they changed the rule. To me it just smells like they where doing everything they could to keep Tiger in the tournament. I know it's impossible but I would love to see how they would have reacted if it was someone else.
Click to expand...

Now that (highlighted) I can see as a rason for "exceptional case" made to determine waiving the DQ because that doesnt have to be considered building a stance or at least it could be argued. The thing with tiger is that there is no argument. To me, if they impose the penalty then they must impose it all or dont impose any of it. Nothing exceptional about it.

The second part if it were a no name. Who knows but would of been interesting. On that very note - I'd like to know how they gave the kid the delay penalty while I watched J. Day stare his friggin ball forever, then reset and then do it again forever as I mentioned earlier. Its amazing how they tracked the kids time but never cought tigers mistake. Now, i ask which one of those has the greater impact on the game results? I can picture my own child at 14yrs probably crying after the embarrassment of that on a stage like this. Pace of play been issue forever and a 14 yr old (on this stage) needed to be used to help enforce it? It is what it is but I mean come on.
 
I thought it was a pretty well known change that was precipitated by the Paddy Harrington DQ?

The Stadler thing is yet another ridiculous call. What a joke.
 
I don't think it was a joke. It's a rule of golf. These guys make a living playing the game. They should know the rules. It's one of the things I love about the game. You are responsible for yourself out there. No one to blame but yourself.

Hawk said:
I thought it was a pretty well known change that was precipitated by the Paddy Harrington DQ?

The Stadler thing is yet another ridiculous call. What a joke.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe the fact that the greatest players in the game don't know the rules is what's hurting the game. I have to know technical manuals front to back for my job.


Tappin' on the Kingphone.
 
The current rules, as they stand, do not fit the modern game. Some, not all, should be readjusted. I don't think they are hurting the game but the lack of knowledge of the rules is. I know very few people that know the rules. They all know a version of a portion of the rule.

A good example is the red hazard rule. Most know two of the several option available when you do hit it the hazard. That is because there is no need to learn them as an average amateur. You can walk into any store buy a game and go play. Make it up as you go. The scary thing is that you will run into more than one person that shares the same version of the wrong rule.

So the Rules as we know them are not hurting the game but lack of knowledge is.
 
Right on. I'm not feeling up to a debate right now, so it is what is. I'll be glad we are protected from the sap-fearers and reed-brushers I guess.
 
rollin said:
your probably right Fourputt. But it says in exceptional case it may be waived.
When they state (even if after the fact) that he is guilty of the improper drop and impose such penalty then what is so exceptional about it? They say he is guilty so there is nothing exceptional about it. Its pretty black and white. You say he is gulty then he is guilty of it all.
If tiger questioned the situation when handing in his card then was told it was fine, that would be an exceptional situation. I could see the waive option rule for that purpose but not this. They were better to just say its too late and thats it. It was missed by him and also us and it was over.
Click to expand...

What it exceptional is that they had the opportunity to discuss it with Tiger and impose the penalty before he signed his card and they chose not to do so. For that omission they took on part of the blame. If they had investigated it more thoroughly in the first place, the penalty would have been 2 strokes. Since it only became a DQ issue because of their hasty ruling, they were warranted in waiving the DQ.
 
Kobey said:
Does it say anywhere how long they have to impose the penalty? What's the statute of limitations on it?
Click to expand...

Basically, unless the player was aware that he had breached a rule or returned an incorrect score, the statute of limitations expires when the competition is officially closed.

b. Stroke Play

In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed. A competition is closed when the result has been officially announced or, in stroke play qualifying followed by match play, when the player has teed off in his first match.

Exceptions: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:

(i) was in breach of Rule 1-3 (Agreement to Waive Rules); or

(ii) returned a score card on which he had recorded a handicap that, before the competition closed, he knew was higher than that to which he was entitled, and this affected the number of strokes received (Rule 6-2b); or

(iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include a penalty that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred; or

(iv) knew, before the competition closed, that he had been in breach of any other Rule for which the penalty is disqualification.
Click to expand...
 
blugold said:
I get it was publicized back 2011. I also think this is the first time 33-7 has been used not at least the most public use of the rule.
Click to expand...

This is not a new rule. It was on the books in 1976 as Rule 36-5. In 1984 the USGA and the R&A made a major reorganization of the rules and it became Rule 33-7, which it still is to this day. What you are all talking about as a new rule is actually Decision 33-7/4.5 which is a new clarification to accommodate HD TV and super slow motion replays and DVR's. The rule itself hasn't changed for many years. The committee has had the authority to waive the disqualification penalty in special circumstances for at least 4 decades.
 
In my opinion yes, the rules should be changed. Yes, as they stand they hurt the game.

Simplification would reduce the intimidation of learning to play and increase enjoyment as well as participation. I know many golfers who avoid any form of competitive play simply to avoid the embarrassment of not knowing the rules.

I am for Peter Kostis' boiled down version of the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top