Baffled by the rules of golf

IVE never subscribed to the theory that rules were meant to be broken.

Well, silly rules that I cant see any point in, perhaps I am guilty of overriding, but generally speaking, rules are there for a purpose.

Theoretically, at least, they are for the benefit of all, and therefore need to be understood by all. So why are golf rules so difficult to understand?

It might be OK for the Masons to have their own secret codes for things, but I would quite like to have an insight into the language of a club of which Im supposed to be member.

If Im in trouble on the course, I want to be given an answer about what to do. I dont want to be told to refer to paragraph 427 with its 97 different sub sections.

I know Ive been told what Through the green actually means dozens of times, but I forget on a regular basis!

All I want to know is, do I get a free drop, or will my caddy spend the next hour wishing he had gone to self harming classes instead?

Just tell me the answer! Ive given up carrying a rule book in my bag now because its just gobbledygook. I can read the same paragraph three times and still have absolutely no idea what Im actually supposed to do.

I cant say that the people who wrote the rule book are idiots, because they are clearly highly intelligent people they are just too intelligent for their own good! They are the equivalent of computer geeks. They have got their own little language which goes completely over the heads of normal
people.

In case you think Im being a little too harsh at this point, I will illustrate what I mean. All this rules debate began after Michelle Wie (pictured right)?was given a two-shot penalty in the Womens British Open for touching moss in a bunker on her backswing.

At least we have now got something in common, since when it was suggested that she should perhaps study the Rules of Golf more closely, she wryly replied, They dont make for great reading material.

When the incident arose, my father immediately went to his Decisions on the Rules of Golf book which incidentally has led me to believe I must have been adopted, since I cant possibly be related to anyone who thinks reading this book is fascinating entertainment, and wishes to share his findings with me when Im deeply engrossed in an episode of Neighbours!

Triumphantly, he told me to read the following paragraph, as an explanation of the rule: Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not: a.

What on earth does that mean? That has got to be the worst constructed sentence I have ever seen.

I taught English to spotty youths for 13 years, and if any of my pupils had produced nonsense like that as an explanation for anything, they would have spent their next break time rewriting it in English.

I could pride myself on devising my own Winnettspeak, and feel very smug in the process, but I would quickly become very short of readers, and then very short of contracts.

So, Mr Golf Rule Writer, (it just has to be a man, because womens brains simply arent wired for such absurdity) you may think its big and clever to rearrange sentence structures until they no longer make sense, but it isnt!

In fact, if someone had the time and patience to translate the rule book into English, so mere mortals who arent law society members could understand it, you could make a fortune.

Lets face it, the majority of golfers carry a rule book in their bag, but few use it since they dont understand how it works. Thats an awful lot of copies which could be joyfully replaced.

However, even rules that appear to be in easy-to-understand language and sentence structure are still totally baffling on the first half dozen readings. For example, I happened to glance at the explanation about what constitutes a fair stance.

Examples of actions which do constitute fairly taking a stance are backing into a branch or young saplingeven if this causes the branch to move out of the way or the sapling to bend or break. Well, that seems fairly straightforward, doesnt it?

Or at least it does until you read one paragraph later: Examples of actions which do not constitute fairly taking a stance are deliberately moving, bending or breaking branches with the hands, a leg or the body to get them out of the way of the backswing or stroke.

Perhaps it really is an advantage to know the rules after all.

In future, if Im ever challenged about being in the above situation, I shall refer people to the former paragraph, rather than the latter! In fairness, I have now discovered a subtle difference between the two, but it took me many readings.

If, however, I had been in a highly volatile state in the middle of a bush en route to a course record, clarity of the rule reading may never have been reached. For some people, ignorance is no defence; for others, it is bliss.

Personally, I always like to carry a bag of casual water in my pocket and a stake to cover many eventualities, and then subscribe to what I was always told was the first rule dont get caught!