2016 Rules changes revealed

[Jake O'Reilly]

Here's the details on the 2016 Rules updates. It looks like the changes move us a small step closer to common sense prevailing, which is always nice.

http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/features/golf-rules/2016-rules-of-golf-changes-revealed-by-ra-and-usga-82676

 

[bladeplayer]

Yea they all seem to be more golfer friendly anyhow , well done R&A

 

[Fish]

Video here if that's a bit heavy reading.

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/...GA-release-2016-edition-of-Rules-of-Golf.aspx

 

[duncan mackie]

Yea they all seem to be more golfer friendly anyhow , well done R&A

6-6d exception just brings the situation between before and after competition closed into line (assuming that after the comps closed is also changed!!!) Otherwise it still retains an inconsistency! Will need to look at.

18-2b is a natural development - whilst the explicit requirement to know what did cause it to move (if it wasn't the player) is removed the committee still have to consider the facts, and presumably continue to rule against the player in cases where doubt remains - Basically no change in practice for most I suspect.

 

[Region3]

18-2b is a natural development - whilst the explicit requirement to know what did cause it to move (if it wasn't the player) is removed the committee still have to consider the facts, and presumably continue to rule against the player in cases where doubt remains - Basically no change in practice for most I suspect.

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.

 

[Fyldewhite]

At last some common sense in relation to DMD's having the unused capability to do something else!!!

 

[woody69]

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.

Got any examples? Maybe we could work it out and educate each other a little

 

[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

 

[Colin L]

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?

 

[Colin L]

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.

It might be easier for you just to go to the new rule book and read the wording of the rules you know have changed. It’s here:

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/...elated Documents/2015/2016 Rules of Golf.ashx

 

[BTatHome]

At last some common sense in relation to DMD's having the unused capability to do something else!!!

Did I miss a link/description about this change ?

 

[chrisd]

I don't see anything groundbreaking in the changes, they all make sense and appear to make applying the rules easier

 

[rulefan]

Did I miss a link/description about this change ?

Revised Decisions

14-3/0.5 Local Rule Permitting Use of Distance-Measuring Device
Q. May a Committee, by Local Rule, permit the use of distance-measuring devices?
A. Yes. A Committee may establish a Local Rule allowing players to use a device to measure or gauge distance only (see the Note to Rule 14-3). However, if a distance-measuring device has additional functionality that can gauge or measure other conditions that might affect a player’s play (e.g. elevation change, wind speed, etc.), the use of any such additional function would be a breach of Rule 14-3.
In the absence of such a Local Rule, the use of a distance-measuring device would be contrary to Rule 14-3. (Revised)

Full List of Amendments

Appendix I – Local Rules; Conditions of Competition
Part A Local Rules
7. Distance-Measuring Devices
If the Committee wishes to act in accordance with the Note under Rule 14-3, the following Local Rule is recommended:
“(Specify as appropriate, e.g. In this competition, or For all play at this course, etc.), a player may obtain distance information by use of a distance-measuring device. If, during a stipulated round, a player uses a distance-measuring device to gauge or measure other conditions that might affect his play (e.g. elevation changes, wind speed, etc.), the player is in breach of Rule 14-3.”

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

At last some common sense in relation to DMD's having the unused capability to do something else!!!

I'm wary - there is a risk that there will be golf applications developed that will use non-conforming information to provide such as an adjusted distance measurement that takes into account the specific conditions measured by the device at the precise time and position the shot is to be played. Is the player then using or accessing the non-conforming information?

 

[Fyldewhite]

I'm wary - there is a risk that there will be golf applications developed that will use non-conforming information to provide such as an adjusted distance measurement that takes into account the specific conditions measured by the device at the precise time and position the shot is to be played. Is the player then using or accessing the non-conforming information?

Yes, it's possible or even probable, but the key to the rule change but that it's the USE of the non-conforming information that is against the rules, not just that the device having such capability. There are plenty of things now that can't be used (grip aids, swing aids, alignment poles etc) so we just don't use them in a comp. Will be just the same for any such apps. So as long as the player used the DMD function only they will be fine........with none of this iPhone compass nonsense making the device itself illegal. All provided the Local Rule is in there in the first place of course!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yes, it's possible or even probable, but the key to the rule change but that it's the USE of the non-conforming information that is against the rules, not just that the device having such capability. There are plenty of things now that can't be used (grip aids, swing aids, alignment poles etc) so we just don't use them in a comp. Will be just the same for any such apps. So as long as the player used the DMD function only they will be fine........with none of this iPhone compass nonsense making the device itself illegal. All provided the Local Rule is in there in the first place of course!

I get that - but now we're going to have to monitor phones for their golf apps. Because some golf DMD apps will be non-conforming.

 

[rulie]

I get that - but now we're going to have to monitor phones for their golf apps. Because some golf DMD apps will be non-conforming.

Who is going to be doing this monitoring, ie, who is "we"?

 

[doublebogey7]

I get that - but now we're going to have to monitor phones for their golf apps. Because some golf DMD apps will be non-conforming.

Are we, surely there are already plenty of non conforming clubs about but how much monitoring do we do to check these aren't used. It all comes down to the game being largely self policing (in terms of the rules), a principle the amendment re-establishes in my view.

 

[Fish]

I get that - but now we're going to have to monitor phones for their golf apps. Because some golf DMD apps will be non-conforming.

So when you see someone using a phone as a DMD are you going to march over to them to see what phone it is and whether it conforms, and then do what :rofl:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So when you see someone using a phone as a DMD are you going to march over to them to see what phone it is and whether it conforms, and then do what :rofl:

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.