Albert Einstein once said, “The important thing is to never stop questioning.” I am not sure what his handicap was, but I am certain if Einstein studied the Rules of Golf, this questioning spirit would have served him well.
I believe the most important question to ask when studying the Rules is “Why?” Without an understanding of why a Rule of Golf exists, it becomes very difficult to understand the Rule and even more difficult to abide by it on the course.
Let’s take an example. Why do we have two types of water hazards in golf? Isn’t the game confusing enough””why add another complication with yellow and red stakes for regular and lateral water hazards? The answer to this question lies in the original 14 rules of golf, one of which stated, “If your Ball come among Watter or any wattery filth, you are at liberty to take out your Ball & bringing it behind the hazard and Teeing it, you may play it with any Club and allow your Adversary a Stroke, for so getting out your Ball.”
The bones of our modern water hazard rule (Rule 26) are very apparent in the language of this original rule. The rule establishes two important precedents””1) where to drop a ball when your ball is hit into a hazard, and; 2) the penalty when you find yourself in a watery grave. These same principles support the modern rule and provide the information we need to answer the question of why we have both regular and lateral water hazards. Hazards that run parallel to the line of play (usually marked as lateral with red stakes and lines) are often positioned so that it is either impossible or impracticable to drop “behind the hazard” as this principle suggests. Without a modification to the regular water hazard rule (allowing for a two club-length drop from the point of entry) a player finding his ball in this situation would be required to take a stroke and distance penalty””a penalty that golfers today, and in the mid-1700s felt was too severe. Further, if we allowed the two-club length option for a ball in a regular water hazard, it would allow players the ability to violate this principle by not dropping “behind the hazard.” Today’s rule ensures that the penalty for hitting a ball into a water hazard remains consistent with this principle””neither too severe, nor too liberal. Without the distinction of regular and lateral hazards this principle would be lost.
One more thought on questions. Remember, when you question a Rule of golf you are questioning generations of “sane and sensible golfers.” After more than 250 years of the written code, there is usually a pretty good reason why a Rule exists. So before you curse a Rule of Golf, ask yourself “why does this Rule exist?” You may not always like the answer, but I can assure you there is a good reason why.
