If I Were In Charge Of The Rules Of Golf, I’d Make These 5 Changes

I’ve been writing about The Rules of Golf for a few years now and I’m always impressed by how comprehensive and fair they are.

The R&A and USGA are constantly monitoring and working on solutions to make the Rules as equitable and understandable at possible, and they do a fabulous job of insuring we all have clear and fair guidelines for what to do in any situation we might encounter on the golf course.

But everyone has their own views on the Rules and will be able to think of at least one or two that treats them unfairly on a regular basis.

I was debating this the other day when a clubhouse discussion started up. A friend asked the group, “If you were in charge of the Rules, what would you change?” This is what I came up with…

Stroke and distance for Out of Bounds

This is one I’ve talked a good deal about. I just don’t think it’s fair.

If you stand up to tee off on a par-4, swing at 200mph, miss the ball completely and hurl yourself off your feet, you can pick yourself up, dust yourself off and have another go, playing two.

However, if you make a smooth swing and perfect connection with the ball but it gets the cruellest of bounces and ends up trickling just off the edge of the course and out of bounds, you have to re-tee and play three from the same spot.

That seems too harsh to me. I think you should be playing two.

If I were in charge, I would say ‘no penalty for going out of bounds.’ But that’s probably just coming from someone who goes out of bounds rather too frequently!

Although… I do think it could make golf more exciting as people would go for their shots a little more often… Just a thought.

The drop

We now drop the ball from knee height, whether it’s free or penalty relief we’re taking. That’s a bit more forgiving than the shoulder-high drop which was rather unpredictable. But why do you have to drop it all?

If you’ve incurred a penalty, why do you need to be further penalised by then potentially dropping it into a divot hole or other similarly unfortunate lie?

If you’re in a position where free relief is available, why can’t you find yourself a nice lie?

I would say it would simplify the Rules and make play quicker if you could always place the ball after you have lifted it to take either free or penalty relief.

Flooded Bunker Rule

It’s another situation in the Rules that I think is unfair. When your ball ends in a bunker that is totally flooded, with no type of relief available, and the committee has not deemed bunkers to be out of play, the only thing you can do is take a penalty drop.

You could try and play it, but if it’s totally submerged that would be somewhat foolish…

No, I would have it that if the bunker is totally flooded, you should receive a free drop outside of it. You haven’t hit into a penalty area and should deserve to have some sort of shot option.

Fairway Divot holes

This must be one of the most unfair Rules in the game. A ball struck beautifully down the heart of the fairway comes to rest on the centre line, but it’s bang slap in the middle of a two-inch deep divot hole.

You basically must accept a penalty by hacking out of it.

That’s not right. I would include divot holes on all closely mown areas as an abnormal ground condition from which you should be entitled to free relief under Rule 16.

Penalties For Slow Play

There’s a Rule to cover unreasonably delaying play (5.6), but there are no actual Rules on pace of play, merely guidelines. As a fast player, I would love to see penalties.

They would have to be changeable on a course-by-course basis. I reckon the option would be for a Model Local Rule that would allow committees to penalise golfers who fell behind the group in front and a certain amount behind the set pace of play requirements.

It would be hellishly difficult to police at club level so not practical really.

I just think it would be fascinating to see how much pace of play was improved if players actually faced penalty shots for dawdling. Quite a bit I reckon.