BY THE RULES:A GOOD question – one that has been discussed during the current rules review, and has split opinion, just as the use of long-handled putters seems to split opinion.

On balance we’ve decided not to take forward any new rules here, influenced by the fact that there doesn’t appear to be an entirely straight-forward way of doing it even if you were minded to.

A significant number of people feel it’s a conforming club, and therefore a complication to say, “a club length” – the traditional measure we like – “but you cant use this club”. If you went down that route, the penalty wouldnt be for using a long putter, but for dropping and playing from a position which that club could get you to, but no other club would.

Why can I repair pitch-marks, but not spike-marks?

Theres always been a problem with slow play. Allow people to “garden”, for want of a better expression, and thats exactly what they'll do. Another problem is, can you always tell spike marks from other imperfections? So if you allow the repair of spike marks, you'd have to allow the repair of anything.

Our other concern comes back to those fundamental principles – playing the ball as it lies, and the course as you find it. If pressure were to come, it would be from the elite game, but at the moment there really isn't any. I understand the question. But its a matter of degrees – ball marks are bigger and more significant. Soft spikes appear to have improved the damage issue on a lot of putting surfaces, too.

Why can’t I drop my ball near where it went Out of Bounds?

There are technical difficulties. There may be wide disagreement as to where the ball actually went out, which could make a big difference. But historically there have been attempts to do this, most recently in the 1960s when the USGA tried a “stroke only” penalty. That lasted a year, so you can tell how successful it was.

There were other times when they tried “distance only”, but we feel both are just too generous. We need to be careful what were trying to fix. If people are concerned about pace of play, that's a legitimate concern and one we have looked at in our latest review in terms of our regulatory options.

Why should you be penalised if you have to drop outside a flooded bunker?

The first thing I'd say is that you are entitled to relief without penalty, provided the ball is dropped in the bunker at the nearest point of relief or, if it's flooded, the point of maximum available relief. It may be a picky point, but dropping outside is not mandated in the rules, though sometimes essential I concede. If dropping in the bunker isn't viable, Decision 25-1b/8 outlines your options for coming out under penalty.

Our rationale? We take the view that the bunker is a hazard, and providing free relief would simply be too generous. Furthermore, flooding and the extent of casual water may vary throughout a round, which is particularly troublesome in a strokeplay event where you have to consider the interests of the field.

We accept that to hit your ball into a flooded bunker is not a good break – it's clearly a bad one. But we've looked at it from a rules committee perspective a number of times, and haven't actually been able to come up with a better alternative.

But we do recognise that there seems to be a lot of rain around these days, so the one change we did make in 2008 via a revision to Decision 33-8/27, was to give committees the authority to declare a bunker ground under repair if its flooded before the event starts and is going to remain flooded throughout.

So from a local rule perspective, committees do now have a little leeway.

David Rickman is Director of Rules and Equipment Standards at The RA. For further information visit RandA.org.