NEW RULES – THE FIRST HINT OF BIFURCATION?
IT IS a spectacularly atypical course of action. Golf, the game that has forever exposed itself as a long-outdated refuge for nonsensical, unfair and illogical rules decisions, will, from January 1st next year, begin applying common sense to many of its more potentially contentious areas. Heavens, the press release announcing the changes even went so far as to describe the soon-to-be introduced procedures as “modernised.” Modern? In golf? Really?
But it is true. Admittedly after wallowing in a typically self-indulgent and drawn-out period of (public) consultation, meditation and, some might assume, constipation, golf’s rules-making bodies – the R&A and the United States Golf Association – have put their heads together and come up with a bunch of new regulations that, wait for it, actually make sense.
Most notably, 2019 will see us dropping balls from knee-height rather than shoulderheight, which is a change from the original proposal. But dropping from any height – even as little as a centimetre – had too much potential for abuse and would have ended up as little more than a preferred lie.
We will all be using our drivers – long-putters not allowed – to measure one-club length or two when taking relief from unplayable lies and the like. We won’t be penalised a shot when inadvertently striking the ball twice during one swing. (Hey, it happens). And, perhaps most controversially and interestingly, we will – as well as trudging back to the spot we have just hit from – have the option of dropping a ball “in the vicinity” of where it has been lost or has sailed out-of-bounds. Penalty: two strokes.
That last one doesn’t quite pass muster though. While its intention is noble – speeding up play by eliminating golf’s longest and most painful walk – returning whence we came will still be the best and maybe only option a fair percentage of the time. While that eventuality can never be eliminated completely, a one-shot penalty rather than two would surely have aided in moving things along even more.
Still, the most interesting aspect of our new and more enlightened relationship with out-of-bounds is that it will apply only to amateur players at club level. On the professional tours and in elite amateur events, the rule will remain as it was. Which is fine in and of itself. But is this the first hint that the R&A and USGA are edging ever nearer to an “us and them” bifurcation of the rules, what has always been – for the blazers – golf’s untouchable third rail? Only time will tell.
Elsewhere, getting everyone round the course a bit quicker has obviously been the driving force behind some of the other changes. Putting with the flagstick in is one. And we will also be permitted to search for a lost ball for no more than three minutes rather than five. Which is fine, albeit pretty insignificant at pro level. Knocking, say, 10 percent off the distance leading players hit their drives and thus reducing the length of the courses they play would make a more significant difference to time spent out on the links. But that is a discussion for another time and place.
Perhaps this column’s favourite amendment will see an end to caddies lining-up their employers prior to making a swing and hitting a shot. That never looked or felt right. Aligning oneself with the target is a test of skill and judgement, not something that should be eliminated from the game’s equation through outside assistance. So good riddance to a habit that did nothing but diminish my view of the players – invariably those competing on the LPGA Tour – and their abilities.
Maybe the biggest risk in all that is being proposed is an increased reliance on a player’s integrity. Here’s what the new rule says: “A player’s ‘reasonable judgment’ when estimating or measuring a spot, point, line, area or distance will be upheld, even if video evidence later shows it to be wrong; and elimination of announcement procedures when lifting a ball to identify it or to see if it is damaged.”
Sadly, the likelihood is that this new era of almost total trust will degenerate into what might euphemistically be called “a cheat’s charter.” Call me cynical, but much anecdotal evidence and long observation of the game at every level has revealed too many players who cannot be relied upon to play honestly. Yes, evil intent is a tough thing to prove. But now we are not even going to try.
All in all, however, our esteemed administrators have done a pretty good job. Yes, they – as per usual – over-indulged in how long it took to come to their decisions. But the end result is, while not perfect, more than satisfactory. Finally.