Golf has never been accused of lacking rules. The rulebook covers everything from the ordinary to situations so strange that most players could spend decades on a course without encountering them.
Consider this one: Under the right circumstances, you can actually play a shot from inside a clubhouse, provided the building itself is not out of bounds. You can even open a door or window to make the shot possible.
So yes, the Rules of Golf have thought of quite a lot.
But that doesn’t mean every rule is beyond reconsideration. The USGA and R&A have revised the Rules before, including major changes in designed in part to simplify the game and improve pace of play. Some provisions, however, still could use another look.
No, this isn’t an argument for legalizing the foot wedge. But these 10 changes could make golf fairer, easier to understand, or simply faster.
1. Get Rid of the 14-Club Limit
Rule 4.1b limits a player to 14 clubs during a round. The traditional argument is straightforward: A golfer should be able to handle different shots without carrying a specialized club for every conceivable situation.
But why not leave that decision to the golfer?
If somebody enjoys carrying 15 or 16 clubs, allowing it doesn’t necessarily give that player an overwhelming advantage, especially if everyone operates under the same rule. More clubs also create more choices, and more choices aren’t always helpful.
A player carrying extra wedges or hybrids would still have to decide which one to hit and then execute the shot. Determining the ideal bag composition could become another strategic decision rather than something dictated by an arbitrary numerical limit.
2. Give Players Relief From Divots
Few situations irritate golfers quite like hitting a drive straight down the fairway only to discover that the reward is a ball sitting in somebody else’s divot.
The Rules already recognize that damage caused by other players can sometimes warrant repair. Rule 13.1c, for example, permits repairing certain damage on the putting green, including ball marks and shoe damage.
Yet a divot in the fairway remains part of playing the ball as it lies.
That distinction is difficult to defend on fairness grounds. A ball that finishes in a clearly identifiable divot, including a sand-filled one, should be eligible for free relief. There would need to be reasonable agreement that the depression actually is a divot, rather than simply an unfortunate natural lie, but that is hardly an impossible distinction to make.
3. Allow Relief From Unraked Footprints in Bunkers
Bunkers are supposed to be difficult. Nobody should expect a perfect lie after hitting into one.
But there’s a difference between the natural challenge of a bunker and finding your ball buried in a deep footprint left by somebody who couldn’t be bothered to use a rake.
The Rules already provide relief for certain abnormal conditions in bunkers. They could also recognize severe damage created by previous players.
A reasonable solution would permit a player to place the ball at the nearest point of relief in the bunker, no closer to the hole, when it is clearly sitting in an unraked footprint or similar player-created damage.
There should be one obvious exception. If you blast out, fail to escape, and the ball rolls directly into the footprints you just created, congratulations: That one belongs to you.
4. Change the Lost Ball and Out-of-Bounds Penalty
The stroke-and-distance penalty for a lost ball or a ball hit out of bounds remains one of golf’s harshest punishments.
Under Rule 18.2, a player generally must add a penalty stroke and return to the location of the previous stroke. A provisional ball can avoid the walk back, but it doesn’t eliminate the stroke-and-distance consequence.
There is already an alternative model. A local rule allows players, under specified circumstances, to estimate where a ball was lost or crossed out of bounds and take relief near the fairway for two penalty strokes.
That helps pace of play, but the underlying discrepancy remains. A ball entering a penalty area can result in a one-stroke penalty, while a ball disappearing into deep rough or crossing an out-of-bounds line can effectively cost considerably more.
A simpler alternative would allow a one-stroke penalty and a drop within two club-lengths of the estimated location where the ball was lost or crossed the boundary, no closer to the hole.
It would eliminate the dreaded trip back to the previous spot while making the penalty easier for recreational golfers to understand and apply.
5. Bring Back the Five-Minute Search
Before 2019, golfers had five minutes to search for a lost ball. That was reduced to three minutes as part of the effort to speed up play.
Three minutes sounds reasonable until you’re the one looking for a ball in thick rough with a stroke-and-distance penalty hanging over your head.
Then three minutes disappears remarkably quickly.
Many recreational golfers will keep searching anyway, particularly when they’re reasonably certain the ball should be sitting somewhere nearby. Restoring the old five-minute limit would give players a more realistic opportunity to find a ball before suffering a severe penalty.
Those additional two minutes likely aren’t the main reason a round takes five hours. There are better places to attack slow play.
6. Give Relief When Somebody Steps on Your Ball
Rule 16.3 provides relief when a ball is embedded in its own pitch mark in the general area, assuming the applicable conditions are satisfied.
But if somebody steps on the ball and pushes it into the ground, that’s a different matter.
That produces a strange result. A ball driven into the turf by the force of your own shot can qualify for relief, while a ball shoved into the ground by another person’s shoe does not qualify as an embedded ball under that rule.
If it can reasonably be established that another person stepped on the ball and forced it into the ground, free relief makes sense. The player could take relief using a reference point no closer to the hole and the appropriate one-club-length relief area.
The player shouldn’t be punished because somebody else turned a playable lie into a buried one.
7. Provide Relief From Boundary Objects
Golf generally provides relief from many artificial objects. Boundary objects are a notable exception.
If your ball remains in bounds but a boundary fence prevents you from making a normal stance or swing, you don’t receive free relief merely because the fence interferes. Your choices may include attempting the shot as it lies, taking unplayable-ball relief when permitted, or using stroke-and-distance relief.
That is a substantial consequence for a ball that never actually left the golf course.
Boundary fences and similar objects could instead be treated more like other artificial obstructions when the ball itself remains in bounds. Free relief at the nearest point that eliminates the interference, no closer to the hole, followed by the appropriate relief area would provide a cleaner result.
The player already paid a price for the inaccurate shot by finishing near the boundary. No additional artificial obstacle needs to be attached.
8. Allow Distance-Measuring Devices Everywhere
The Rules have permitted distance-measuring devices since 2019 unless a competition adopts a local rule prohibiting them.
Yet major professional events have continued to treat them differently. The PGA Championship has allowed rangefinders, while other elite events have continued to rely heavily on yardage books, course markings and player-caddie calculations.
The distinction feels increasingly unnecessary.
A rangefinder tells a player how far away something is. It doesn’t select the club, judge the wind, determine the proper trajectory, or hit the shot.
Allowing distance-only measurements can also remove some of the lengthy conversations and calculations that take place before shots. Slope-adjusted information can remain prohibited if organizers want players to make those calculations themselves.
Knowing the number and hitting the shot are two very different skills.
9. Standardize Relief From Red and Yellow Penalty Areas
Penalty-area relief is one of those subjects that can make an otherwise competent recreational golfer suddenly start asking the entire foursome what the rule is.
Yellow penalty areas generally offer stroke-and-distance relief or back-on-the-line relief. Red penalty areas provide those choices plus lateral relief.
There’s historical and strategic reasoning behind the distinction, but it also adds another layer of complexity to a game already loaded with them.
One solution would be to provide the same relief options for both colors, including lateral relief within two club-lengths, no closer to the hole.
Courses could still use markings to identify penalty areas, but players wouldn’t need to remember separate sets of relief procedures based on the color of the stakes.
10. Put Some Teeth Into the Pace-of-Play Rule
Rule 5.6b encourages players to maintain a prompt pace and recommends making a stroke within 40 seconds after a player can play without interference or distraction.
The problem is that encouragement only goes so far.
Slow play remains one of golf’s most persistent frustrations. And while there are many causes, watching someone spend several minutes preparing for a routine shot isn’t helping.
A meaningful 40-second requirement, backed by an actual penalty when appropriate, would change behavior quickly. Once a player has found the ball, completed any necessary relief procedure, and can play, the clock should matter.
There would obviously need to be allowances for unusual circumstances, interference, and legitimate rules questions. But a clearly enforced standard would make the expectation unmistakable.
Golf doesn’t need to abandon its traditions or turn every unfortunate lie into free relief. Bad bounces are part of the game, and they always should be.
But a bad bounce created by nature isn’t quite the same thing as a ball buried in somebody’s footprint. And preserving golf’s challenge doesn’t require preserving every complicated or time-consuming rule forever.
The Rules have changed before. These 10 would be good candidates for the next discussion.
