Typhoon

There's one already out there, by that company.

The problem, of course, is that periodically some rules change or are amended in some way, and hardly no author or publisher is interested in providing free updated copies of their books to customers who have the old edition.
The USGA Rules app for smartphones is probably the most practical solution, but it's not free if you're not a USGA member. For that matter - it might not even be free even if you are a member.

On a related note... back about 10 years or so ago, I was playing in a best-ball tournament, and my partner and I were actually tied for the lead with the guys we were playing with. So one of our opponents hits his tee shot into a deep-faced fairway bunker, except the ball doesn't come back down to the flat area - it's half-buried in the sand, and it's a wicked incline to boot. I don't know which of the maintenance guys raked that bunker earlier in the morning, but most of the sand was raked up the incline near the face. Anyway....

So the guy goes into the bunker, has an awful stance... if he were leaning any further back he would've fallen over. To make matters worse - he's having to stand in deep sand. So I go over and play my shot, and as I'm walking back - I look over and I see him using his foot to plow away some of the sand. We're not talking just a couple of little shakes of the shoe, but using every ounce of his power in his hips to remove some of the sand where he would address the ball.

Then he gets into his stance, then starts digging with his shoes like a major league baseball player standing in the batter's box.

I went over and said, "Hey, do you realize that you just incurred two different penalties there?" He was like, "What? What are you talking about?" I said, "well, for starters - you're not permitted to level the sand out in the bunker. That's called 'testing the condition of the hazard.' Furthermore - you're only permitted to firmly place your feet into your stance, but you're not allowed to build a stance by digging your feet in like a baseball player."

He got really upset at that news, needless to say. Luckily his playing partner was in good shape off the tee, relatively simple shot into the green, I fully expected him to do no worse than par from such a short distance. But the guy just refused to agree with me. So his partner comes over and says, "show me exactly what you did." The guy mimics what he did in the grass outside the bunker, which wasn't nearly as egregious as what I saw, but it was still evident enough. He said, "Yep, that's a penalty... can't do that." But despite his own playing partner confirming the penalty, he was still being obnoxious about it, with his buddy.

His buddy came over and apologized to me, and said he couldn't understand why he was making an issue out of it, it was clearly a penalty.

So after the round, the guy refuses to shake our hands. He just walked off the last green, put his clubs in the bag and sat in the cart, still stewing. Once again his buddy apologized, and said that he would never invite him to play in another tournament ever again. I bought him a beer afterward, actually we ended up playing some golf together that summer. But not with his buddy. lol

The most confounding thing is that the episode with the guy on the green wanting me to replace my ball on the green, and that situation with the guy moving the sand with his foot - these are very, very basic rules that just about everyone who plays even somewhat competitively should know. I think however that most people just assume that if it's allowed in their Thursday evening league - it's allowed all the time... players who don't play enough tournament golf to know the difference.

I didn't play my first official tournament until I'd been playing for several years, primarily because I didn't think I was good enough to compete, but also because I was more or less a twilight golfer who played once a week and really didn't have enough interest beyond that to even worry about the rules. But once I started playing more regularly, started getting into the low-80's - I figured maybe it was time to learn the more formal side of the game, just on the off chance that I might actually decide to play in a tournament at some point or get asked by someone to play with them in some sort of outing.

But I can also understand why some people don't stick with golf. There are a lot of rules, some of them stupid... very few of them actually help the player, most of them penalize a player. And sometimes for nary a practical reason. If one doesn't have the patience to endure the stress and frustration long enough to eventually get good enough, both mentally and physically, and get to a point where they see those situations as less of a penalty and more of an opportunity to overcome a challenge - this game offers them very little. I know a guy who played for 20 years, got down to a +2 handicap, won a bunch of club events, got his name on the wall, etc. only to lose his putting ability and just walked away after a 2-year struggle. He said he got tired of hitting the ball great and shooting 75's and 76's.

Everyone has their own reasons for playing, I guess.


    LOL !

    USGA Rule book, will not help idiots 'cause they could look at the pages and still not getting it.
    I had dealt with some of them in the past.

    I find it funny that the USGA has trouble with its own rule book.

    It is time for two sets of rules. 1 For recreational play and 1 for competitive play.

      Subsonic

      Totally agree,make a few simple basic rules for the average player and leave the obscure decisions about decisions for the pro's.....it might help to start growing the game again.

          darpar I don't know about that (growing the game). Most recreational players pay almost no attention to the rules anyhow.

          I play in a league and I just shake my head at some of the things people do. It's just a friendly league so it's not worth making a fuss. I'm no rules expert, but I probably know more than most people I run across.

            darpar

            It would lower the barrier to entry for some and make the game less intimidating. It would probably be a little help.

            I think it could help more with the pace of play issues.

              I wouldn't be against changing a couple things, for sure.

              I think it's absolutely pathetic that spike marks shall not be tapped down on the greens. Tell me - you're simply gently tapping down a couple of blades of grass sticking up that have every reason to force the ball to roll off its intended line. The blades of grass just simply didn't grow a little higher than all the others since they were mowed a few hours earlier.... No - someone playing up ahead, albeit probably unintentionally, dragged their feet. But now I gotta be put at a disadvantage because of their carelessness? Have any idea how many spike marks I had to putt through last weekend because of the soft conditions and all of the rain we've had recently??!! All I could do was laugh and try not to let it frustrate me.

              I mean - if it were something that involved tamping down the turf and soil forcefully enough to change the contour of the surface itself, to where it was evident that the player was intentionally attempting to change the natural, designed nature of the contour of the green - wouldn't we kinda know the difference? If I didn't know any better, I'd believe that the ruling authorities are worried that some of us use a fucking sledgehammer to putt with. For crying out loud - gently tapping down two or three blades of grass? How on earth does that equate to impairing the sanctity and integrity of the rules and the game???!!!

              I absolutely despise hitting a nice tee shot in the fairway only having to play out of a divot that someone didn't replace, but I kinda understand the entire "play the ball as it lies" deal in that particular situation. The rule book is wordy and complicated enough... we don't need another 20+ pages added to the already existing confusion, describing what constitutes a divot, what a normal divot looks like, differentiating between an old sand-filled divot, a fresh divot, the characteristics of a deep divot versus a shallow divot, or the occasional uneven depression in the ground that has the ball sitting down in what looks like a divot but really isn't. Yes - I can see where golfers might come to blows in a highly contested tournament when one guy says he gets relief because his ball is in a divot, yet his opponent contends that his ball is just sitting down in a naturally worn, uneven lie area. Hey, no problem - I understand the one-rule-covers-all-headaches approach when there's not enough "virtual certainty" pertaining to what something is or isn't. There has to be a consistent standard, I get it.

              But gently tapping down a spike mark? You might as well tell me that I'm not allowed to aim at the hole, because that's usually the fucking outcome.

              Pardon the language, but that rule gets me fired up.

              Dumbing down the game, changing the rules, making the holes bigger, making the courses shorter, etc. doesn't get the golf industry from point A (where they currently are) to point B (where they want to be). This goes above and beyond the cost of a driver, or the price of a Titleist NXT ball. We're talking the entire industry.

              Back in 2011, Nicklaus offered the only real long-term solution for the waning interest in golf. People laughed, told him he was crazy. Of course - his solution was so enormous in scope, so revolutionary, that it would ultimately require a long-term commitment from all of the organizations around the world associated with golf, including the independent owners of both private and public golf facilities worldwide. It would require an enormous campaign, and there would certainly be lots of initial criticisms early on, particularly from the traditional loyalists who would rather see the game dry up to nothing than change the way it needs to today to reflect the current realities. All of the game's governing bodies would have to embrace an adjusted universal handicapping system.

              It wouldn't be easy. It would take several years to implement and get everyone on board. But in the end, if we're talking about real sustainable growth - it's really the only viable-yet-unlikely solution. Unlikely, of course, because so many people are against change, especially when it is radical in nature.

              His solution was the 12-hole round.

              At first, I was like no way. This would never go over. Then I started thinking about it. I started thinking about everything that I personally don't like about golf. It has very little to do with the rules... has very little to do with the challenging nature of the game itself. But the time commitment - certainly. I don't like that I have to spend most of a day away from my house to play a round of golf. I don't like the expense either. Now mind you - equipment costs and hard goods - that stuff won't get any less expensive. But it stands to reason that if you're playing 1/3 less holes - then the price of greens fees should likewise reflect 1/3 less cost savings. So I've cut down my time investment by 1/3... I've cut my greens fees expenses by 1/3. Instead of forking over $60 and 6 hours of my day on Saturdays, I'm now spending 40 bucks and back home 4 hours later. Not only that, but now maybe I can justify playing on Sundays too, whereas before I was just a once-per-week player.

              From the golf course owners standpoint... they're really not standing to lose much money. In fact - they might actually increase revenues. They now have an additional 6 holes to accommodate more play. Sure - it would require some coordination with rerouting the different 6-hole layouts from one side to the other, but there are currently plenty of 27-hole facilities already doing this successfully.

              So the more I thought about it... particularly given that the older we get - generally speaking - the more easily tired we get... 12 holes is perfect. On the rare day that I want to play more golf - I can always do a replay, where 24 holes sound much more enticing that the usual 36. Just on that standpoint alone - some facilities could stand to gain from replay revenues alone.

              At this stage of my life, retired... I can play whenever I want, as many holes as I want. I'm a private club member, my investment wouldn't change... but I'd enjoy a shorter round. I'd enjoy coming home in the afternoon not feeling dog tired and having a couple more hours to do stuff around the house before it gets dark. But for the public golfer, who has essentially been forced to curtail his golf hobby because of time and expense? This would certainly find some appeal.

              Of course, none of this would happen. It's too radical of a change, and golf seems hellbent on stubbornly maintaining tradition, even if it eventually results in near-extinction. But this is really the only real long-term solution, if the keepers of the sport are genuinely interested in sustaining long-term interest.

              Agree to disagree on the 12 hole course idea.

              Why not just design 18 with three 6 hole routes?

              With regards to Golf Course design, many of the courses are just too damn hard. I have a local course that has a slope of 136 from the white tees.

              I play at a facility that has a par 72 regulation course and a par 62 course. That is the best compromise I have seen. The Championship course for those that want to play a classic 18 or are more into competition golf and the par 62 really appeals to inexperienced players and seniors as well as average golfers. I play and enjoy both.

              I have played from the cart path in those situations where the nearest relief puts you worse than you were. Guys look at you funny when you putt from there, but then again... It's within the rules to use my 14 clubs however I see fit and one time it actually worked out darn near perfect as the path ran up close it the green and dropped my ball right on the fringe. The trusty topped shot works to save a club if the putter is impractical.

                DC300

                Probably would've played it from the path had it been a tournament. But in a friendly $3 nassau - not worth scratching up a nice club... I'd rather lose the 3 bucks.

                    I continue to be amazed, if not somewhat frustrated, that some golfers just don't seem prepared for tournament golf.

                    As I played my match Sunday against my opponent, I was also taking note of the other two quarterfinalists competing in my bracket, who my opponent and I played with that round. The one guy in the other match is a seasoned competitor, very good player despite not playing overly well Sunday and coming up short in his match. He's very active in the club tournaments and also a frequent competitor in the local regional amateur championship each fall, so he's very familiar with both the expected courtesies and the rules.

                    His opponent, however... (who I am playing on Saturday in the semis) seemed very aloof.

                    On three different occasions, either myself or his opponent had to explain, point-by-point, his basic free-relief options available to him. We're not talking about overly complicated situations.... but rather very basic, everyday stuff that tends to happen - like a ball that comes to rest on a cart path, or having to stand on a cart path, etc.

                    And although it would be somewhat short sided of me to assume that he's not aware of the general courtesies that are to be expected in matchplay (like the concession of a simple, 1-foot putt) the first two hours of play had him wanting to see his opponent putt every last putt out, even in those situations when a missed 1-footer would've still easily given his opponent the hole. After three consecutive holes of this early on, I just whispered to him, "you know - it would probably speed up play if you just simply concede those putts, because he ain't missing them. A 2-footer - that's a judgement call. But a 1-footer? It's commonly expected to concede them. But it's your call, obviously."

                    Now there are situations. If maybe the guy is 4-down with 5 to play, then yeah - I would expect to have to hole everything out, even from a foot. Not saying that a majority of players would expect his opponent to "need to see it" in those situations, because I personally wouldn't... but I can also understand and appreciate the situation. But when you have a lead or are tied with your opponent - why on earth would you feel obligated to make him hole-out a 1-footer?

                    It just boggled my mind.

                    So come Saturday - he's probably gonna expect me to make everything. Which is all well and good... I don't struggle too much from that range, I've not much trouble with the short ones. I just hope that if he does employ that tactic - he's prepared to endure the same pointless monotony in return.

                    Conceded putts are obviously to the discretion of the opponent, but I think there's a point where it becomes quite evident that you're either a douchebag, or you're not familiar with that environment.