Code Two

[El Gringo]

Its a radical idea to mesh the rules with Stableford, much of which makes sense. However, I don't think it would ever fly. Instead, what may happen is a strong pull for bifurcation with USGA events played under old rules and many club events etc played under new rules. It could lead to as much confusion as the current rules do. That said I do like the elimination of provisional balls, varied ways to play in and lateral hazards for two reasons. These are some of the main areas where golfers get it wrong and second, the game would be quicker.

One important aspect about speed of play needs to be addressed if the idea of Stableford is to be be fully embraced. That is handicapping. The USGA needs to drop the concept of all rounds count for handicapping. Once the player is free of this idea, it isn't so painful just to pick up and move on - which Stableford encourages. Otherwise, there could be some quibbling about nil point went a ball is lost. Guys will begrudge not having the opportunity to save that 1 point - something also very critical to Stableford.


In any case, I do think you are on the right track. The rules of golf need to be simplified, I don't think there is any question about that.

Well done and keep plugging away.

[DonLilley]

First thoughts on reading code 2 are positive, but will have to look and think quite a bit about it. Don't like 27-1 "A penalty of disqualification may be imposed after the competition has closed" without some safeguards as there are at the moment. Maybe you have some logic behind it???
There certainly seems to be an emphasis on speeding up play, those who complain about too many complicated rules at the moment will now go on to complain about not having a chance to complete the hole, I say "tough you can't have it both ways".
If it is OK with you I will chip in with my 2 cents worth now and again.
Best of luck with your efforts, Maybe we'll get to play together at Pennard again!
Don

[John Morrissett]

Don -

Nice to hear from you. I hope all is well at wonderful Pennard.

With regard to the broader net for disqualification after the close of competitions, one theme of this project is the elimination of as many exceptions as possible (as we believe that exceptions add to the difficulty of learning the Rules). In that regard, it is concerning today how one minute can make the difference between disqualification and no penalty (e.g., if the Committee learns of a player's breach (of which he was unaware) before the close of competition or after the close of competition). While there is certainly a valid practical argument to be made to provide some type of statue of limitations for penalties, it does provide a significant exception that does lead to some confusion (i.e., with some people today mistakenly believing today that there is no penalty for a breach, discovered after the score card has been returned but before the close of competition, if the player did not realize he had committed a breach).

This is one change that David and I discussed for some time, as we were anxious about its ramifications. However, part of the purpose of this project is to raise such issues for discussion as so often there is a trade-off between a desired result and the complexity that is added to the Rules to achieve that result; sometimes the trade-off is worthwhile, sometimes perhaps not.

All the best,
John

[DonLilley]

(07-31-2013 05:22 PM)John Morrissett Wrote:  Don -

Nice to hear from you. I hope all is well at wonderful Pennard.

With regard to the broader net for disqualification after the close of competitions, one theme of this project is the elimination of as many exceptions as possible (as we believe that exceptions add to the difficulty of learning the Rules). In that regard, it is concerning today how one minute can make the difference between disqualification and no penalty (e.g., if the Committee learns of a player's breach (of which he was unaware) before the close of competition or after the close of competition). While there is certainly a valid practical argument to be made to provide some type of statue of limitations for penalties, it does provide a significant exception that does lead to some confusion (i.e., with some people today mistakenly believing today that there is no penalty for a breach, discovered after the score card has been returned but before the close of competition, if the player did not realize he had committed a breach).

This is one change that David and I discussed for some time, as we were anxious about its ramifications. However, part of the purpose of this project is to raise such issues for discussion as so often there is a trade-off between a desired result and the complexity that is added to the Rules to achieve that result; sometimes the trade-off is worthwhile, sometimes perhaps not.

All the best,
John

Hi, John, glad you remember our time together, my privialge I believe there should certainly be a destinction between a player who is innocent of a breach and one who is trying to "get away with it".
Late evening now so won't try to embelish.
I wish you all the best in this endevour and be assured of my suppotrt. (for what it's worth).
Don