For the first time since 1984, the Rules of Golf are receiving an overhaul, with a six-month period comment period lasting until Aug. 31, 2017. (Changes won't go into effect until Jan. 1, 2019.)
So what did golf's governing bodies get right? Is there anything about the proposals that needs fixing?
Our panel of experts examines the tweaks in a special edition of Four-Ball. (And if you want to suggest your own opinions to golf's powers-that-be, hear are links to the USGA feedback page and an R&A survey.) The full list of proposed rules updates (via USGA.org) is here.
1. Which rule change do you like most? The least?
ESPN.com senior golf analyst Michael Collins: Of course as a former caddie, I love the laser rule. I doubt we'll see it at every PGA Tour event immediately, but I bet they'll be a couple of test events where they are allowed. I understand why the rule about lining up players is put in, but it's a rule that will easily be circumvented, making the game longer instead of shorter.
ESPN.com senior golf writer Bob Harig: I'm a big fan of the rules changes that take away all the angst on the greens. If a ball moves, put it back. So many of these instances of head-scratching could be avoided with the simplicity that has been put forth in the new proposal. I like all the changes, but I can nitpick the change from five minutes to three minutes for looking for a lost ball. That seems extreme. And if it is meant to speed up play, well, a lost ball means stroke and distance, so now you have to walk back to the original spot to hit again -- which takes more time. Why not spend a bit more time looking for the ball?
ESPN.com senior golf writer Jason Sobel: Really, it's the entire prevailing theme that golf needs to be more modernized and sensible that I like. I love the fact that nearly every previous unintended violation that would have resulted in a ridiculous penalty -- like the Dustin Johnson situation at last year's U.S. Open -- will no longer result in such ridiculousness. I disagree, though, with the proposed change that drops can be taken an inch above the club. Shoulder height has always seemed like the right way to determine the impending lie.
2. Fact or fiction: There should be different rules for professional golfers and amateurs.
Collins: Fiction. There should be a separate set of rules for tournament golf versus casual golf. I want amateur tournaments to feel like pro tournaments. Where the game needs to be sped up is at the casual, weekend golf level. That's where the rules should be relaxed.
Harig: This has never been an easy question. For the most part, we play by different rules anyway. Different sets of tees. Different equipment. The pro tours play the embedded ball rule (local rule) differently than we do. So there is a differentiation anyway. I understand the idea of having a same set of rules, but there are areas where the average guy is not following them anyway. Why not identify those and change them?
Sobel: Fact. I've come around on this one. While I do understand the appeal of recreational golfers playing by the exact same rules as top professionals, I don't think it's necessary. If I played football with some friends, we wouldn't play by NFL rules. I think the game can be relaxed for more relaxed environments.
3. Of the rules that weren't tweaked, which do you wish the USGA and the R&A had updated?
Collins: Divots in the fairway should have been deemed ground under repair. I hit the ball where the course designer wanted me too and I'm potentially penalized for it? That's not in the "spirit" of the game that's supposed to be based on integrity.
Harig: Signing for an incorrect scorecard. This has been and continues to be a harsh penalty for something that is considered procedural. Especially at the pro level, everyone knows what a player shot. If there is a discrepancy, work it out, even after the fact. The idea is to get it right, not penalize someone for a math or accounting error. But in the same light, if it is discovered that a player purposely altered his scorecard then the penalties should be harsh.
Sobel: The common answer here will likely be removing a ball from a divot in the fairway. But I'd rather see them implement a one-stroke penalty for out of bounds near point of entry. It would not only speed up the game, it would be fairer.
4. The rules change process started in 2012. Is that amount of time too long, too short, or just right?
Collins: A seven-year process from start to "finish." I guess it guarantees there are no knee-jerk reactions, yet it isn't such a glacial pace that you'll lose players as the process goes forward. Seems fine to me. I would like there to always be allowances for "special circumstances" just in case. That seems like a smart thing to have in place as well.
Harig: They needed a lot of time to get this right. Not sure for the rules, but the simplified wording. No problem with the long, measured look at all this. But now that they've proposed these changes, why wait until 2019? Make the comment period three months instead of six. That would give the governing bodies six months to get them put into play with a Jan. 1, 2018, start date.
Sobel: Toooooo long. I do realize that the organizing bodies can't simply snap their fingers and decree new rules; I like the fact that there is a consideration process. But it doesn't need to last this long.