2016 Rules changes revealed

[Fyldewhite]

Exactly my point. Now that a DMD with non-conforming devices is allowed we have opened the door to apps that use the information the non-conforming devices on the DMD provide. As a result we have a new rule that will become unenforceable in the context of apps that integrate that information with current position and map information.

So what you are saying is that players who own mobiles can't be trusted to use them and not break the rules? You can't stop somone having a compass in their bag either, you can't stop someone using a DMD when there's no local rule, you can't stop someone kicking a ball out of the rough.......... Golf rules aren't generally enforced, they are observed. I'm pretty sure any breaches will be rare just like with any other rule.

 

[Slab]

I do get the impression that the headline rule changes are being done with the high profile golfer in mind (pro's tours and other televised/spectated events)

Anchoring
Wrong scorecard
Ball moving
Training devices

and while the rules might well warrant the change anyway, by having a defined (if only in my head) group directing what way the rule book goes in future I think its a step closer for the case of having separate rules for professionals and a simplified version for club amateurs

Exactly what gives that impression?

Hi Colin, sorry had to leave the office yesterday just after posting so couldn't reply

My thinking was that each of these amendments have the same thing in common, each has been subject of some very high profile examples/scrutiny in recent years but each 'anomaly' has also been present in golf with no action being taken for much longer

If it had not been for the high profile examples I wonder if we'd be seeing these rule changes at all

As an example the wrong scorecard non DQ if player was unaware of the penalty, had it not been for a couple of well known pros falling foul would this rule have been changed?
Same for ball moving amendment, would club golfers have benefited from this amendment had it not been for high profile pros giving this much more attention?

So in some respect we've the pros to thank for getting these changes through but I had to ask myself that without them happening to the best players in the world, would the rule changes still have happened and if not then it means the pro game is driving/influencing the rule reviews and that doesn't seem right as they represent a tiny portion of the players who need to comply to the RoG and despite one set of rules they play a very different game to Joe & Janet Public

Happy to have this 'theory' ripped to bits

 

[Colin L]

Thanks for taking time to write such an interesting reply. (For a moment I was impressed that you would be up in the middle of the night to write it, but then noticed your location!)

I don’t doubt that high profile incidents have considerable influence on the evolution of the Rules but I imagine that thousands of other less public events have their place too and that the submissions to the R&A/USGA from officials and golfers from all over the world ensure that the continuous process of rules revision is well informed about golf at every level. I can only say that I “imagine" this to be the case as I don’t have actual knowledge. As far as the 2016 changes are concerned, I’m happy enough with outcome.

 

[delc]

I'm reading it as now being innocent unless proven guilty rather than guilty unless proven innocent.
What that means in practice, who knows.

I've also just read through the full list of changes. I don't consider myself stupid but there's quite a lot that are not easy to follow!
Maybe it's because both the old and new are there with some words crossed out, but I'm seeing the words and nothing's sinking in.

I'm pleased to note that Rule 18-2 now seems a bit more sensible. Unless it is obviously blowing a gale, it is often difficult to know what caused a ball to move after being addressed. I have been involved in a couple of incidents where fellow competitors have had the ball move on them, despite the fact they had clearly not caused it to do so. :thup:

 

[MashieNiblick]

I'm pleased to note that Rule 18-2 now seems a bit more sensible. Unless it is obviously blowing a gale, it is often difficult to know what caused a ball to move after being addressed. I have been involved in a couple of incidents where fellow competitors have had the ball move on them, despite the fact they had clearly not caused it to do so. :thup:

Removal of 18-2b seems a fairer, but I assume the thinking behind 18-2b was that it removed any need to determine whether the player had caused the ball to move. Now that will become an issue so it will be interesting to see if there are many disputes as to whether the way in which a player addresses/places the club behind the ball may have caused the ball to move.

Also just for the record in the light some references above, use of a compass is no longer illegal - Decision 14-3/4 Use of Compass During Round (revised)

 

[MashieNiblick]

Also just noticed viewing the video in the R&A site that Rule 3-3 has been changed. They don't say how but looking at the old and new rules it seems the requirement that the player "must" announce his/her intention to play 2 balls and which one should count has been changed to "should".

Current Rule

"After the doubtful situation has arisen and before taking further action, the competitor must announce to his marker or fellow-competitor that he intends to play two balls and which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit."

New Rule

"To proceed under this Rule, he must decide to play two balls after the doubtful situation has arisen
and before taking further action (e.g. making a stroke at the original ball).

The competitor should announce to his marker or a fellow-competitor:
• that he intends to play two balls; and
• which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball."

So if you don't have to say which ball you wish to count before playing the balls as it is only "should", I assume you are not penalised if you don't. In that case aren't you opening the door to people making that choice after having seen the result of the 2 shots?

 

[Spuddy]

You need to read on to section b. If the player hasn't announced which ball he wishes to count then it's the original (or first ball if the original is lost) provided it's allowed under the rules.

 

[rulefan]

Also just noticed viewing the video in the R&A site that Rule 3-3 has been changed. They don't say how but looking at the old and new rules it seems the requirement that the player "must" announce his/her intention to play 2 balls and which one should count has been changed to "should".

So if you don't have to say which ball you wish to count before playing the balls as it is only "should", I assume you are not penalised if you don't. In that case aren't you opening the door to people making that choice after having seen the result of the 2 shots?

The reason for the change is that the 'must' had no associated penalty, so was somewhat redundant. As said above, the rule makes it clear which ball is to count if the player does or doesn't make an announcement. He has no choice after the event.

 

[MashieNiblick]

You need to read on to section b. If the player hasn't announced which ball he wishes to count then it's the original (or first ball if the original is lost) provided it's allowed under the rules.

The reason for the change is that the 'must' had no associated penalty, so was somewhat redundant. As said above, the rule makes it clear which ball is to count if the player does or doesn't make an announcement. He has no choice after the event.

Thanks both. Makes sense now.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

When do the new rule books become available? Should clubs already have them?

 

[upsidedown]

When do the new rule books become available? Should clubs already have them?

Picked up two today from the club :thup:

 

[drdel]

'Policing' DMD Apps is virtually impossible.

Until the Apps on mobile phones or DMDs can hit the ball I don't see the problem as to whether a golfer has access to wind speed etc. or not.

The professional's caddy pretty much has a self made terrain map and pretty precise club distance data.

For the average Joe the difference between just having access to distance or having access to every other bit of weather and terrain data is likely to be the sum of next to nowt.

 

[rulefan]

'Policing' DMD Apps is virtually impossible.

Until the Apps on mobile phones or DMDs can hit the ball I don't see the problem as to whether a golfer has access to wind speed etc. or not.

The professional's caddy pretty much has a self made terrain map and pretty precise club distance data.

For the average Joe the difference between just having access to distance or having access to every other bit of weather and terrain data is likely to be the sum of next to nowt.

For the average Joe the difference between just having access to old fashioned distance markers and a DMD is likely to produce the same result. 10-20% of the shot length from the target in any direction (N,S,E or W).

 

[Colin L]

For the average Joe the difference between just having access to old fashioned distance markers and a DMD is likely to produce the same result. 10-20% of the shot length from the target in any direction (N,S,E or W).

O ye of little faith.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

'Policing' DMD Apps is virtually impossible.

Until the Apps on mobile phones or DMDs can hit the ball I don't see the problem as to whether a golfer has access to wind speed etc. or not.

The professional's caddy pretty much has a self made terrain map and pretty precise club distance data.

For the average Joe the difference between just having access to distance or having access to every other bit of weather and terrain data is likely to be the sum of next to nowt.

That may well be true. But much of golf is about 'confidence' in your club and shot selection. The more information about the specifics for the shot you are about to play being taken into account by your App and perhaps mapped against what you have done and usually do in similar circumstances - the more confident that you will be in the club you are choosing and the shot you are about to play.

But I accept that I'm on a loser with this line of argument and so I shan't prosecute it any further.

 

[duncan mackie]

That may well be true. But much of golf is about 'confidence' in your club and shot selection. The more information about the specifics for the shot you are about to play being taken into account by your App and perhaps mapped against what you have done and usually do in similar circumstances - the more confident that you will be in the club you are choosing and the shot you are about to play.

But I accept that I'm on a loser with this line of argument and so I shan't prosecute it any further.

You are not on a looser with respect to the implications of the change - agree completely and I suspect many others do too.
However in the wider picture the secretive use of illegal features is just another way to cheat and the rules are designed to enable the honest Joes to play the game rather than any serious attempt to prevent cheating.

 

[rulefan]

However in the wider picture the secretive use of illegal features is just another way to cheat and the rules are designed to enable the honest Joes to play the game rather than any serious attempt to prevent cheating.

Thomas Pagel, Senior Director, Rules of Golf & Amateur Status, USGA


"I'll just note that as with all other rules, our starting point is to assumethe honor and honesty and integrity of the player. We try not to start -- we try not to writethe rules from a starting point that we presume somebody will try and take advantage ofit,..."

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Thomas Pagel, Senior Director, Rules of Golf & Amateur Status, USGA


"I'll just note that as with all other rules, our starting point is to assumethe honor and honesty and integrity of the player. We try not to start -- we try not to writethe rules from a starting point that we presume somebody will try and take advantage ofit,..."

Which is fine - but I'm more concerned (though I'm not too concerned tbh) that this opens the door for all sorts of app development that could undermine a little bit of the integrity of the amateur game - in that you have to make up your own mind pretty much unaided on the shot to play given the situation and conditions prevalent at the time. That's always been a bit of a leveller and tough part of playing the game.

But I would think this wouldn't I given that I don't use any sort of measuring device other than my eyes with a bit of help from on-course markers (did I ever mention that I think that DMDs should be banned for (closed) club comps - I think I probably did - but as I haven't for a while )

 

[drdel]

I'm all for letting everyone have as much information as they like; it will be fun to see the "paralysis from over analysis" that will soon creep in and level the playing field.

We already see how in the professional game player and caddy have constant 'board meetings' over their notes; competitions should enforce strict slow play penalties on on-course committees and the 'average Joe' will, hopefully, copy their pace of play.