These 3 Ryder Cup Rules Should Be Modernized

I want to get ahead of this because I know the comments will be made.

No, I am not writing this story because the U.S. lost. I honestly wasn’t even rooting for the Americans to win the Ryder Cup, although that Sunday comeback bid was riveting television that had me unable to take a bathroom break for about 90 minutes straight.

Having said that, I think this Ryder Cup made it obvious that three old-fashioned rules should be modernized.

Are they the only three aspects of the Ryder Cup that should change? No. This edition at Bethpage was a bit of a gong show, led by the PGA of America’s total incompetence to run a functional golf tournament (but that is a story for another day).

I’m focusing on these three rules—which can be viewed as minor or massive depending on your perspective—because it’s time for the tournament to evolve.

The Ryder Cup has made format changes throughout its history, especially the inclusion of continental Europe in the competition in 1979. Majors have routinely made these changes, whether it’s with qualification, how the cut line is determined or other details.

Why can’t the Ryder Cup change?

Here are the three rules that need to evolve.

1. Eliminate “retaining” possibility

When a team wins the Ryder Cup, they just need to win 14 of the 28 points at the ensuing match to retain the trophy.

This obviously leaves the possibility open to a 14-14 tie, even if one team “wins” the cup.

Other than “it’s always been tradition to do it that way,” there is no reasonable explanation to continue this format.

I get that 14-14 ties are highly unlikely given that it has only happened twice (1969 and 1989) in the match’s history. The odds of a tie coming into this year’s Ryder Cup were around +1200.

But let’s face it—nobody wants to win on a technicality. The Europeans would have been livid if they only retained the Cup.

By requiring 14.5 points to win, you naturally add more drama into the event because it might take a little longer to get that extra half-point.

Also, you could add a playoff component by requiring that each team selects their best player for a one-hole, sudden-death shootout.

While this would rarely, if ever, be needed, that lingering playoff possibility is way more satisfying than watching one team reach 14 points and have the match feel like it’s over.

2. If you have a player who is injured, you forfeit the point

This “man in the envelope” situation could only happen in a sport as staid as golf.

I totally understand there is a history of the Ryder Cup awarding a half-point to each team when a player is injured. It happened in 1991 when Steve Pate of the U.S. couldn’t play (although the score was tied heading into Sunday so it didn’t matter much) and again in 1993 when Sam Torrance of Europe couldn’t play (Europe had a slight lead heading into Sunday but lost that Ryder Cup).

Regardless, this rule doesn’t make sense. In no other sport can you pull out with an injury and actually be rewarded.

Nobody is questioning Viktor Hovland’s injury that didn’t allow him to play last Sunday, but his pulling out was perhaps an easier decision, given that splitting the match helped Europe way more than the Americans who were fighting for every point.

And that half-point awarded to Europe ended up mattering. Who knows what would have happened if Shane Lowry’s 18th-hole victory against Russell Henley only got the Europeans to 13.5 instead of 14 points? The pressure on the remaining few groups would have been immense.

I think the solution is similar to what the Solheim Cup does on the women’s side: if you forfeit the match, you forfeit the whole point.

3. Course setup needs to go into a neutral party’s hands

This topic has been brought up a lot in the past but I think the total debacle of a setup at Bethpage Black counts as another vote for golf courses to be set up by a third, non-partisan, party.

If you bring the Ryder Cup to a course, it should just play as the course was meant to be played.

Seeing Bethpage with the rough cut down to nothing was embarrassing. The course was ridiculously soft, even with minimal rain in the Northeast. There was no consequence for missing anywhere, which was not fun to watch. One of the hardest courses in the country didn’t test players at all.

American captain Keegan Bradley said he already regrets the course setup but it really shouldn’t be in either of the captain’s hands.

Manipulating a golf course usually stacks the deck against one of the teams (although the Americans failed miserably in doing that this time around).

Why not just play the course as it was designed?

These are the best players in the world—let’s not dumb down these courses to make them into birdiefests. Just give the course setup to a third party and let the teams play the course like it’s meant to be played.

Those are my three Ryder Cup rules changes. Let me know what you think.

Top Photo Caption: Shane Lowry and Jon Rahm celebrate a Ryder Cup victory at Bethpage. (GETTY IMAGES/Mateo Villalba)

The post These 3 Ryder Cup Rules Should Be Modernized appeared first on MyGolfSpy.