The Open has new codes of conduct for players and spectators. One requires no clarification

SOUTHPORT, England — There are some things the Open Championship just doesn’t do well. Like air-conditioning or the availability of ice cubes.

But there are things the Open does better than other majors. Like creating myriad global pathways into the field, or not cheapening its stature by leaving historic venues to roll the dice elsewhere for corporate or commercial reasons, or going places where breakfast bacon isn’t so thin it could have been sliced from the back of a sleeping hog without waking it.

In one respect, the Open is indistinguishable from the rest of the 2026 majors. It has posted a code of conduct governing competitors, including strong penalties for serious misconduct. An explicit warning wasn’t necessary at the 153 previous editions of this championship, or at any of the first 474 men’s majors played. It was introduced for the 475th earlier this year at the Masters, and owes its existence to the winner of the 477th last month at Shinnecock Hills.

The R&A confirmed to Golfweek that the following policy covering “serious misconduct” is in effect this week at Royal Birkdale: “If a player’s (or their caddie’s) behavior is so far removed from what is expected in the spirit of the game of golf, in accordance with Rule 1.2b, the Chief Referee, in consultation with the Chief Championships Officer, may issue an official warning or apply a penalty of two strokes or disqualification, taking account of the frequency, impact or potential impact, intent and severity of the misconduct.  An official warning does not need to be given prior to applying a penalty of two strokes or disqualification.”

It’s apparent the majors are taking a collective stand in the wake of Wyndham Clark obliterating a locker at Oakmont Country Club after missing the cut in the ’25 U.S. Open. Trying to maintain acceptable behavior is an effort most folks can get behind, particularly on matters of common courtesy, like not vandalizing the club at which one is a guest. The sport should attempt to preserve some ideal of the gentleman golfer, even if we’re in an era when many golfers aren’t gentlemen. But not every player incident is a prima facie case like Clark’s. Rather, most issues arise inside the ropes and the evidence and enforcement is awfully subjective.

And the nomenclature being used in the codes of conduct — frequency, impact, severity — offers little clarity when situations do arise.

Two of the year’s three completed majors had cause to enforce their codes of conduct. Sergio Garcia smashed a club during the Masters, while at the U.S. Open, Joaquin Niemann threw one across the fairway. There was video evidence of Garcia’s infraction but not of Niemann’s, so the USGA relied on eyewitness reports (which Niemann disputed). One offender — the guy with a record of frequent infantile tantrums — received a warning. The guy with no reputation for such was hit with a two-stroke penalty. Both incidents are reasonable examples of why the policy is needed, but they also highlight how it is almost certainly destined to be unevenly applied.

Start with the idea of “serious misconduct” — what constitutes that? A preacher in the gallery might claim profanity qualifies, whereas a longshoreman standing next to him might not (tour players are more deserving of punishment for their woeful lack of creativity in cussing than for the mere expletive itself). If abuse of clubs is the standard being sanctioned, then parse that. Niemann’s club was launched across the fairway while Garcia’s never left his hand. One remained intact; the other was rendered useless. If a club going airborne is more serious, does distance traveled matter? Is a club tomahawked into the turf treated the same as one flung down the fairway? What about a putter angrily thrown toward the bag while storming off a green? Do we indict based on how many spectators were present or endangered? Crowds were sparse when Niemann committed his offense, while the Garcia video went viral. Which one had more impact?

The fact that decisions made and penalties applied will be inconsistent from case to case and major to major isn’t a reason not to enact codes of conduct, but those making the calls must be hoping that a few high-profile, impactful punishments will quickly chasten players. But punishing misconduct is necessary because the authorities can’t credibly tackle belligerence among spectators if they take no action against players.

It’s a sign of the times that for its 154th edition, the Open has posted a spectator code of conduct. It wasn’t inspired by concerns about fans gambling since that’s been legal here for generations without incident. Nor was it provoked by a specific episode, as fans at the Open are generally well-behaved (helped by the fact that they’re usually bundled up against inclement weather, though Brian Harman can offer a counterpoint on that).

The requirements this week at Royal Birkdale don’t cause confusion or demand greater clarity — respect the players, respect the course, respect each other, act responsibly. Translation: don’t be an asshole. The kind of thing that should be easily honored by anyone this side of Long Island, on either side of the ropes.