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.
A true first for me...
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.
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.
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.
- Edited
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.
Just hit it, go find it and hit again. 
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.
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.