[TEPaul]

"I'm also supportive of the concept, the principle and feel that this is a step in the right direction.
While I believe the OGA has done other things on their own, like permiting the flattening of spike marks, counter to USGA policy, I think they're on the right track on this issue since noone else has yet to step up to the plate."

Patrick:

In theory I may be supportive of this concept too, although I believe I would prefer to just see the USGA follow through on the mechanisms that they have been putting in place that may potentially reign in or even dial back distance.

I do realize the OGA is looking for support of a grass roots effort to put pressure on the USGA to do more or do something more quickly about stopping distance increase.

Obviously OGA was interested in speaking with me because this year I run the Board of the State Golf Association immediately to their east. Clearly, they would've liked the PA GOlf Association to join this grass roots effort. I did mention the issue to my board during our Spring Board meeting in early April and they were not in the slightest bit interested in joining that effort without the support or Rules support of the USGA.

It appears to me that almost every other major regional golf association in America will simply stick with the USGA or with the USGA's interpretation on this issue, as I think they should.

I am not one who believes in factionalization amongst golf associations particularly when it comes to Rules of Golf issues and particularly if it creates factionalization on Rules interpretations between state and regional golf associations and our national golf association.

Perhaps you just don't understand the importance of that rather elemental fact.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
In my limited experience I've found that interpretations are a product of intent."

Patrick:

That is very likely so, and it is pretty clear that the USGA's 'intent' or intention at this point is to not support the institution or legislation of a competition golf ball simply because the USGA (and R&A) believes at this point that a single unified standard in all I&B matters for ALL golfers is the proper way to proceed as it has been for many years now. Again, if you do not believe that is their intent or intention I suggest, as I have a number of times with you that you read very carefully the R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Priniciples as it relates to this particular issue.

If the R&A/USGA changes their opinion or intent on that issue then I will certainly support them and their postion as I would hope the golf associations I'm with would support them.

Perhaps the single most important factor underlying all the years I've worked with golf associations is to work to insure that unfication in almost all ways and in almost all things be maintained from top to bottom. I happen to believe that factionalizations amongst our national, state, regional and local golf associations would ultimately destroy the life and vibrancy of amateur golf in America.

[Anthony Butler]

Tom,

I would view this OGA thing as an experiment, not a golf tournament conducted under the rules of the USGA. Someone mentioned that the OGA had changed the tournament designation to an 'invitational'. If that's true that would indicate that the OGA is unsure as to the status of their event. The fact that the USGA has not to my knowledge issued a statement condemning this can be interpreted in many ways. It would not surprise me if the USGA wants some activity on this issue to guide them in which way they will act on further restrictions of the golf ball. The fact that PGA Tour players are hitting golf balls further without so far violating the USGA limits on initial velocity etc... indicates only that golf ball manufacturers have innovated successfully within the rules. That's why the USGA is being so cautious... they can't afford another Ping Square Grooves debacle on their hands.

It's a pity that in the spirit of an experiment, they don't have a separate flight of similarly credentialled competitors playing with any ball they choose from the conforming ball list. Then you would get some sense as to whether this directive impacts scoring as well as distance.

[TEPaul]

Anthony:

Your responses on this issue show me a wise and thoughtful guy.

This entire issue is a very complex one on many levels. A guy like Pat Mucci either doesn't want to see that or he sees it and refuses to admit it. Who knows why?

He's seems to think that everything I've said is my personal opinion about what should be done about a competition ball. He can't seem to understand I'm only talking about and have only been talking about what I BELIEVE the R&A/USGA's opinion is on a competition ball and a tournament committee's ability to require such a thing in competition under the Rules of Golf.

It is just patently ludicrous for him to continue to maintain on here that any tournament committee can use the wording in App 1, Part C 1b to justify the requirement of a tournament committee under its "Conditions of Competition" that their tournament's competitors must use a single specified golf ball.

The Local Rule (List of Conforming Balls) he's trying to fit this "competition" ball justification into has been in the Rules book for years, and way before anyone ever dreamed of a "competition" ball requirement. Not just that but he seems to continue to just avoid the fact that the R&A and USGA have said very clearly they do not want a competition ball in golf because it would alter their long held believe that a single I&B standard for all golfers is the best way to go. So why on earth would they even dream of using the list of conforming golf balls local rule to justify such a thing?

He even tells me that perhaps whomever I talked to in the USGA may not have been aware of App 1, Part C, 1b. For God Sakes some of the people I talk to in the USGA could sit here and practically recite from memory the entire 164 pages of the Rules Book if not most of the 515 pages of the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book. And why wouldn't they? Some of them are the ones that write, rewrite and interpret the Rules of Golf every single day.

Would the USGA like to see golf associations and more golfers start to get up in arms over excessive distance? I have no doubt they probably would.

I have no doubt if American golfers generally, the manufacturers and others for some odd reason got completely up in arms and made it perfectly clear that they all wanted the golf ball rolled back 50 or more yards off of the ODS the USGA would agree to that not just tomorrow or even today but yesterday. And why wouldn't they?

Unfortunately there's a good deal to consider with the reality of all things today on this particular issue and they don't have the luxury of acting off such a one-dimensional opinion as that of someone or anyone like Pat Mucci.

There's no question that sometimes the USGA comes across as a bit distant or defensive on some issues. Do you blame them when they have people like Patrick Mucci trying to tell them every day that he knows how to interpret the meaning of their own Rules of Golf better than they do?  

[Anthony Butler]

TE Paul
[quote ]
There's no question that sometimes the USGA comes across as a bit distant or defensive on some issues. Do you blame them when they have people like Patrick Mucci trying to tell them every day that he knows how to interpret the meaning of their own Rules of Golf better than they do?  

Tom,

Thanks for your kind words. I admire your forbearance in even considering some of the fallacious arguments here and on other threads... Given your collective 25,000 + posts, I imagine the number of times you and Mr. Mucci have butted heads must run into the hundreds. I'm not sure if I have the patience to deal with him that long... in my short experience, he does seem to advocate the 'minority' POV on many subjects, so I guess you can generally count on support from the rest of the GCA community to support your position.

On the other issue, given their history in interceding on the introduction of new technology into the game, the words "gun shy" could also apply to the USGA.

I'm interpreting the smiley face to mean that you are joking about the USGA listening to Pat. I do think Fred Ridley might have used his legal expertise to tighten up some of the wording in the Appendices and Local Rules that allow rogue associations and individuals the luxury of interpreting their rulings incorrectly. Does the OGA actually believe they are conducting a tournament within the Rules of Golf? Some of their actions suggest otherwise.

[TEPaul]

"I'm interpreting the smiley face to mean that you are joking about the USGA listening to Pat. I do think Fred Ridley might have used his legal expertise to tighten up some of the wording in the Appendices and Local Rules that allow rogue associations and individuals the luxury of interpreting their rulings incorrectly. Does the OGA actually believe they are conducting a tournament within the Rules of Golf? Some of their actions suggest otherwise."

Anthony:

The USGA has enough past, present and future problems all by themselves. The day they start listening to Pat Mucci on how to interpret their Rules of Golf is when the USGA and probably amateur golf in America will be completely out of business in less than a year.  

You think Fred Ridley should've tightened up the wording in the Appendix so a rogue association wouldn't try to use existing wording to justify requiring a competition ball do you?

Well, Ridley didn't do that probably because the issue never actually came up as it did with the OGA recently. But it has come up now and Walter Driver, the USGA Rules Committee, the R&A Rules Committee and the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee very likely will do something about his shortly.

There was a time a few years ago when Hootie and ANGC were about to release the exclusive story to SI that they were considering a compettion ball for the Masters. At the very last minute ANGC completely killed the story. What happened? It very well may've been that the USGA (one of ANGC's members on the USGA) informed Hootie that attempting to conduct the Masters by requiring all golfers to play a single specified ball was not possible to do at that point without an approved Local Rule to provide for it under the "Conditions of Competition". The fact is no such approved Local Rule existed then and it still doesn't no matter how much Pat Mucci wants to make it look like it does.  

Does the OGA actually believe they are conducting a tournament under the Rules of Golf?

You know, that's a very interesting question and turning this into an "invitational" may be a pretty clever move on their part that avoided a real Rules confrontation with the USGA. Did they think to do that initially? Probably not. They probably realized at some point that actually conducting a tournament and then hitting the competitors with a local rule (of their own) REQUIREMENT in the "Conditions of Competitoin" that they all must use a golf ball supplied by the OGA when they got to the tournament might precipitate problems in a Rules context that they did not want to precipitate.

It seems to me the OGA is trying to send a message about excessive distance and lack of USGA control of it. I don't think they wanted to precipitate an interpretation in the context of the Rules of Golf about what the independent rights are or what the autonomy of a tournament committee is in a Rules context in relation to the USGA. But it appears that will ultimately be exactly what they will be precipitating.

But putting this one ball requirement on an "invitation" may be pretty clever. It gives all the players invited the CHOICE beforehand of coming to play or not with a single specified ball.

I very much doubt the USGA Rules of Golf Committee would look at a requirement on a tournament invitation the same way they'd look at a requirement to use a single specified ball on a tournament committee "Conditions of Competition" sheet. "Conditions of Competition" is a concept mentioned and used in the Rules book. I'm not aware that a tournament "invitation" or any requirement in one has anything to do with golf rules.

And if that were so, and there was no requirement on this tournament's "Conditions of Competition" sheet anyone could make the case that all the players simply made their own individual choice to play the same golf ball from the USGA's Conforming Ball List.

The central question in this whole OGA tournament situation just may get down to one of player choice--or lack of it. If all the competitors chose to play this ball going into the tournament, hey, who cares?----just as long as they weren't being forced to play it by some local rule that does not exist in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf that suddenly appears on the OGA's "Conditions of Competition" sheet once they arrive at the tournament.

However, I did ask JohnK of the OGA an interesting question. I asked him if a competitor came to play and changesd his mind and decided before starting that he wanted to play some other ball on the List of Conforming Balls what would the OGA do about that?

JohnK said he thought they probably wouldn't accept his scorecard. I asked him if he meant the OGA would DQ that player? He said, no, they just probably wouldn't accept his scorecard. When I asked him what, if anything, was the difference I don't recall that he had an answer.

So I guess the problem of conducting a competition not under the Rules of Golf would only arise if they tried to DQ a player for deciding to play with some other ball on the Conforming Ball list because as far as I can see there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that empowers a tournament committee to deny any competitor his right to choose whatever ball he wants to play with that's on the USGA's List of Conforming Golf Balls.

And the other local rule---eg the One Ball Rule---all that means is once a competitor has chosen any of the balls on the List of Conforming Balls before starting he has to stick with that type of ball during that round.

[Anthony Butler]

TE Paul
[quote ]
You think Fred Ridley should've tightened up the wording in the Appendix so a rogue association wouldn't try to use existing wording to justify requiring a competition ball do you?

Well, Ridley didn't do that probably because the issue never actually came up as it did with the OGA recently. But it has come up now and Walter Driver, the USGA Rules Committee, the R&A Rules Committee and the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee very likely will do something about his shortly.... But putting this one ball requirement on an "invitation" may be pretty clever. It gives all the players invited the CHOICE beforehand of coming to play or not with a single specified ball.

The central question in this whole OGA tournament situation just may get down to one of player choice--or lack of it. If all the competitors chose to play this ball going into the tournament, hey, who cares?----just as long as they weren't being forced to play it by some local rule that does not exist in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf that suddenly appears on the OGA's "Conditions of Competition" sheet once they arrive at the tournament.

However, I did ask JohnK of the OGA an interesting question. I asked him if a competitor came to play and changesd his mind and decided before starting that he wanted to play some other ball on the List of Conforming Balls what would the OGA do about that?

JohnK said he thought they probably wouldn't accept his scorecard. I asked him if he meant the OGA would DQ that player? He said, no, they just probably wouldn't accept his scorecard. When I asked him what, if anything, was the difference I don't recall that he had an answer.

So I guess the problem of conducting a competition not under the Rules of Golf would only arise if they tried to DQ a player for deciding to play with some other ball on the Conforming Ball list because as far as I can see there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that empowers a tournament committee to deny any competitor his right to choose whatever ball he wants to play with that's on the USGA's List of Conforming Golf Balls.

And the other local rule---eg the One Ball Rule---all that means is once a competitor has chosen any of the balls on the List of Conforming Balls before starting he has to stick with that type of ball during that round.

In any dictatorship (Nth. Korea, Saddam's Iraq...) you get a 'choice' of leaders, it just so happens that in every election 100% of people choose their 'maximum leader'... something like that right?  

The actions of the OGA as you describe them lead me to the conclusion that the OGA actually knows they are doing something not covered in any of the the Rules of Golf it's appendices or its Local Rules section.

The scary thing is that Pat Mucci thinks it's all there in the Book, we're just not looking hard enough! I await his claim of executive privilege.

[TEPaul]

If one reads the initial post of Pat Mucci's thread here you can see it's really two separate subjects----or is it?

1. What would a change in spin rate do?
2. Is a "competition" ball going to catch on (due to a move like OGA's) and where would it be made?

In the last few pages we've pretty much beaten to death all the Rules of Golf ramifications of OGA's move to REQUIRE a single specified golf ball in one of their tournaments.

But what about spin rate?

In my opinion, it certainly is possible that legislation on spin rate on the part of the R&A and USGA in an I&B context could have perhaps a fairly significant influence on distance control or even effective roll-back on distance particularly with the higher swing speed contingent of golfers.

But the truly interesting aspect is spin rate legislation on golf balls just may not effect lower swing speed players as negatively or as much as high swing speed players distance-wise. This would seem to be the ideal effect. In essence it may take things back to where they used to be relatively between high and low swing speed players before the creation of the new age golf ball. If done correctly perhaps it could even take things back PAST where things used to be relatively. And most interestingly of all it may be possible to take things back between the two swing speed contingents by allowing physics itself to do the job. That factor PHYSICS would use just may be the physical effects in a distance context of swing speed on a particular degree of spin rate. In my opinion, this just may be all about how certain clubhead  MPHs, certain spin rates create certain trajectories on the golf ball.  The good news could be that lower swing speed players are not capable of hitting the ball hard enough to negatively effect the golf balls trajectory distance-wise as high swing speed players are.  

Most on here seem to criticize the USGA for not doing more about the ball but they did roll out three separate areas they have said they are looking at with I&B with perhaps a thought to new or improved controls. The annual Equipment Standards Committee Report mentioned three distnct areas;

1. MOI (Moment of Inertia
2. Spin Generation
3. The Ball

Shouldn't we be asking more specific questions about those areas of research and investigation?

Spin Generation? What does that mean? It seems to me it means the ability to produce less or more spin with the golf ball in given circumstances. I think this area of "spin generation" in the mind of the USGA involves perhaps new areas of control in spin generated by both the ball and club characteristics.

And then they've called for prototype balls for all the manufacturers that go 15 and 25 yards less far. Less far than what? I don't know. Would that be less far than the present ODS limitation?

The interesting thing about these new prototype balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far is the USGA apparently did not ask for and is not requiring any particular construction specs from the manufacturers. Apparently the request from the USGA was that each manufacturer spec them any way they want (within the five present ball regulated areas) just as long as they go 15 and 25 yards less far.

I suppose it's being done that way simply so the USGA Tech Center can test them all to determine what it is about each manufacturer's prototype ball that makes them go 15 and 25 yards less far----or---what it is about their construction that makes them not go any further!!!  

Instead of calling for a competition ball as Pat Mucci and the OGA seems to be-----something the R&A and USGA has clearly said (in their Joint Statement of Priniciples) they are not interested in doing because they want to preserve a single I&B Standard for all golfers, why don't we try to look more carefully into what they do seem to be doing to perhaps potentially control or roll back distance?  

If they have no interest in controlling or perhaps rolling back distance then why have they stated publicly that they're looking into these three I&B areas? Why have they asked ALL the manufacturers to supply them with their own spec balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far? And once again, 15 and 25 yards less far then what, and 15 and 25 yards less far by whom?  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Since I know your modus operandi so well it appears your silence on this issue of App 1, Part C, 1b would indicate that you have conceded the point that the USGA would condone a tournament committee using that particular "Condition of Competition" to require the use of a single specified golf ball (Competition ball).

It also appears you cannot answer how the USGA has 'acquiesced' in this OGA specified ball tournament situation, as you previously stated.

This only shows what happens when someone makes irresponsible statements without the benefit of a thorough understanding of THE FACTS!!!!!

You probably thought you could just avoid the issue and let this thread slip quietly into the back pages but you must know I would never allow you to let that happen.

So you have two choices---you can just continue to avoid admitting that you were wrong or you can write on the GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's classroom blackboard "I WAS WRONG" one hundred times. Either choice amounts to the same thing that everyone on here knows you're WRONG----as usual, and all you're doing on here is shooting your mouth off with no basis in reality.

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

That's definitely something interesting you've pointed out about the USGA's request for balls going 15 and 25 yards shorter.  By not specifying the "how" they are allowing room for manufacturers to be clever and see if they figure out a way to create a ball that goes 25 yards shorter under the standard Iron Byron test but perhaps loses little or no distance for guy who can't manage 200 yards on his Sunday best.

Of course it is possible some/all of the manufacturers will cop out and just make the ball 8% less lively so it loses 25 yards on the test and the 200 yard guy loses 16 yards.  But the smart ones would at least be thinking along the lines of wanting to be able to advertise that their new 'shorter' ball is only shorter under the USGA tests and for touring pros, but that everyday players won't notice the difference.  That would certainly be a competitive advantage against competitors' balls where the masses are losing 15-20 yards off the tee and a club on their irons because the core has been deadened a bit!

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Perhaps you've been away but I think you owe me a few answers to a few questions.  

It is my distinct opinion that once you've lost a debate your modus operandi is to just not answer some of the last questions.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I have been unavailable for the last week or so.

Don't ever equate pursuing my family, business and personal responsibilities at the expense of time on GCA.com as a form of acquiescence on any issue with you or anyone else.

As to your point about the rules of golf being absolute, as stated in "The Rules of Golf", and the interpretation of C, 1 b. being limited to just one interpretation, I'd disagree.

If that was the case there would be no need for a "Decisions" book, which further defines, fine tunes and/or clarifies grey areas.

The R&A and the USGA aren't a unified body.
They disagreed on a number of issues, including COR relating to drivers.   Callaway produced a driver declared non-conforming by the USGA, which the R&A accepted as conforming, so please, don't lecture me on unification.

Having said that, I believe that it's better for golf if all governing bodies are on the same page.

However, when a ruling body abdicates or forfeits their responsibility through inaction, they alone are responsible for the divisiveness and splintering amongst the factions.

On a related issue, the USGA limited clubhead size, and then caved to the manufacturers and allowed the larger 460 cc limit.

We know that clubhead size is an issue related to the distance problem.

You, Geoff Shackelford, myself and others have discussed the danger posed to the USGA by the inaction of the USGA, an organization which I strongly support, in general.

The OGA has presented the USGA with an opportunity to take a step in the right direction, one the USGA evidently agrees with or they wouldn't have asked the MFG's to spec a reduced distance ball.   Instead of remaining silent on the issue the USGA should have acknowledged that the OGA's interpretation of C, 1 b. was acceptable.

You, and others, choose to remain frozen on the issue or would prefer taking steps in the opposite direction.

How much more analysis is needed before the USGA admits that distance has become a substantive problem ?

Ron Prichard had the foresight to see the problem about a dozen or so years ago and he put pen to paper and warned the USGA about the problem.

What has been done in those intervening 12 years ?

NOTHING.

WHY ?

Atl least the OGA understands the problem and has taken a prudent path to try to correct it before it continues on an uncontrolled progression.

Don't stand in rigid defiance of the OGA's actions, bend, vis a vis an acceptable interpretation of C, 1 b.

You'll feel better.

[TEPaul]

"As to your point about the rules of golf being absolute, as stated in "The Rules of Golf", and the interpretation of C, 1 b. being limited to just one interpretation, I'd disagree."

Pat:

That is my entire point. When it comes to the "R&A/USGA Rules of Golf including their Appendix and to the Rules of Golf Decision Book the final authority is the R&A and the USGA Rules of Golf Committees.

Therefore, the correct INTERPRETATION on any and every Rule including what can and cannot be used by tournament committees in their "Conditions of Competition" (App1, Part C) ultimated falls to their Rules Committees and not OGA's interpretations or their lawyers' interpretation or your interpretation or my interpretation.

I do not believe there is anything in the Rules that spells this out nor is there any precedent I can find when it comes to the automomy of a Tournament "Committee". But I am of the very strong belief that this is the way the R&A and the USGA Rules Committees feel about this and again, they are the Rules writers and Rules interpreters and I believe this OGA situation will precipitate wording within the Rules of Golf making that authority clearer and what a tournment committee's autonomy is to use their own local or speimen or special Rules.

OGA obviously wants to promote a "competition" ball but I feel what they really will end up promoting is much clearer language in the Rules of Golf of what the autonomy of "a committee" is AND ISN'T!!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What a minute. In post #51 you said;

“TEPaul,
I believe you're incorrect.
If you look under Local Rules, Part C, "conditions of the competition" subparagraph 1 b, you'll find the following wording.
b. List of Conforming Golf Balls
The USGA periodically issues a list of Conforming Golf Balls that lists balls that have been tested and found to conform.
c. If the committee wishes to require players to play A brand of golf ball on the list, The list should be posted and the following condition of competition posted: "  The ball the player plays must be named on the current list of Conforming Golf Balls issued by the United States Golf Association.

I believe the ball being used is on the conforming list.
I also believe that the critical language is:If the committee wishes to REQUIRE PLAYERS TO PLAY A brand of golf ball on the list."
It would seem that the local rule allows for the committee to designate A brand of ball for play.
They can also implement the ONE Ball local rule in conjunction with that rule.”


And then in Post #86 you say;

“Instead of remaining silent on the issue the USGA should have acknowledged that the OGA's interpretation of C, 1 b. was acceptable.”

What are you saying here? Is it you who thinks that App 1, Part C, 1a or 1b can be used by a tournament “Committee” to REQUIRE competitors to use a single specified golf ball (Competition Ball) in their “Conditions of Competition or is it the OGA that thinks they can use App 1, Part C, 1a or 1b?

Have you talked to OGA about that or are you just ASSUMING that’s what they could use or should use? I would be pretty surprised if state golf administrators who are all very good on the Rules of Golf would come to that interpretation regarding App 1, Part C, 1a or 1b. And I would be far more surprised if the USGA came to that interpretation regarding App 1, Part C, 1a or1b.

Anyone who understands the Rules of Golf well understands neither the list of conforming balls Condition of Competition nor the One Ball Condition applies to a tournament committee’s ability to require a competitor to use a single specified golf ball or a "competition" ball during a stipulated round.

The List of Comforming Ball condition give competitors the option of CHOOSING any ball on the list to use and the One Ball Condition gives them the same choice of any ball to use from the list and only restricts them in the USE of the ball from the LIST they CHOOSE during a stipulated round.

These two Conditions were not written into the Rules of Golf by the R&A/USGA to permit a tournament committee to REQUIRE the use of a single specified golf ball by all competitors (Competition Ball). Why would the R&A/USGA authorize that interpretation or interpret wither of their "Conditions" that way since the R&A/USGA is not even in favor of the use of a competition golf ball in golf because they wish to maintain the use of a unified standard of balls and equipment for all golfers?

Furthermore, there are two separate and distinct issues here and you don’t appear to understand that. One is the R&A/USGA’s philosophical decision on the use of a “competition Ball” in golf and the other is their decision (or not) to write the wording into the Rules of Golf permitting a tournament committee to use a Local, Specimen or Special Rule in their Conditions of Competition to require players to use such a ball.

I think this OGA issue will ultimately have much more to do with a definition or clarification by the R&A/USGA on the nature of the "committee" and what kind of authority or autonomy they do and don't have within the Rules of Golf to act independent of the R&A/USGA in matters to do with "Conditions of Competition".

[TEPaul]

"I asked that question and was told the it had been researched very carefully by the OGA and others, and that initially there was some concern on the USGA's part, but, that they acquiesced on the issue."

Patrick:

I asked you a few times how you think, or you think the OGA thinks, the USGA has acquiesced on this issue and you have yet to anwer me, other than to ask me if I understand what 'acquiescence' means.

I can assure you I know what acquiesce and acquiescence means.

How do you think the USGA has acquiesced on this OGA issue??  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Would you cite where the USGA has said that C, 1 b. prevents the OGA from implementing a competition ball stipulation ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Would you cite where the USGA has said that C, 1 b. prevents the OGA from implementing a competition ball stipulation ?

WELL ............ I'm waiting  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Would you cite where the USGA has said that C, 1 b. prevents the OGA from implementing a competition ball stipulation?"

Pat:

First, a point of clarification. In this thread you seem to refer to the wording of App 1, Part C, 1a but when you refer to the Condition of Competition you call it 1b. 1a is the List of Conforming Golf Balls condition and 1b is the One Ball Condition.

Obviously, I can't cite where the USGA has said that the List of Conforming Golf Ball condition prevents the OGA from using that particular condition to require all competitors to play a single specified ball (from the Conforming Golf Ball list) because nothing like this has ever come up before for the USGA or the R&A. But I can tell you what the sentiment is amongst the USGA about basically the intention of a "committee" to require essentially a "competition" ball.

But before I go on I must certainly ask you ONCE AGAIN (because you seem to refuse to answer) if the OGA or any representative of the OGA actually told you that they DO intend to use App 1, Part C, 1a (or 1b) as a Condition of Competition to require all competitors to use a single specified golf ball? (By the way, I hope you realize I have spoken with a few representatives of the OGA).

The reason I ask you that is I just can't believe ANY competent golf administrator or Rules Authority would think to use that Condition of Competition to justify the requirement of a "committee" for the use of a single specified golf ball.

All golf administrators know that the "List of Conforming Golf Ball" condition allows any competitor to select any golf ball he chooses from the list of conforming golf balls. The only reason the wording on that Condition of Competition (1a) says "A" brand of golf ball is obviously because a golfer in competition doesn't normally play two (or more) golf balls at the same time (other than Rule 3-3). Furthermore why would the wording in 1a say that the List of Conforming Golf Balls should be posted if only a single specified ball is required under that "Condition"?

Again, any competent golf administrator or Rules official knows that 1a allows any competitor to play any golf ball on that Conforming Golf Ball list. There is no more restriction to that "Condition" than that. Basically there just is no "Condition of Competition" that allows a "committee" to require all competitors to play a single specified golf ball.

So, again, did the OGA or a representative of the OGA TELL YOU they were going to use App 1, Part C, 1a (or 1b) or is that just something you came up with on your own on this thread?  

If your answer is that they actually told you that they plan to use App 1, Part C, 1a (or 1b) then I will continue and tell you what I believe this means and what it will lead to on the part of the USGA (and R&A).

By the way, I can pretty much guarantee you that since this OGA issue arose the USGA's Rules Committee has begun to address this issue and a decision on it will be forthcoming from the USGA, probably after the US Open. This is an issue which I'm convinced will end up in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committee and with wording within the Rules of Golf Book (or Decisions Book) will be forthcoming.

I think this OGA issue just may break new ground within the R&A/USGA about what kind of autonomy a "committee" has. The entire concept of the "committee" entered the Rules of Golf in 1902. Its function and authority with wording within the Rules will obviously be evolving.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

WELL-----I'M WAITING!!  

Don't forget to answer the question if App 1, Part C, 1a (or 1b) is just your idea or the OGA's.  

Look, Pal, you know only about 2% of the truth about golf course architecture----are you sure you really want to get into the labyrinthine world of Golf Rules?  

[Anthony Butler]

Patrick:

WELL-----I'M WAITING!!  

Don't forget to answer the question if App 1, Part C, 1a (or 1b) is just your idea or the OGA's.  

Look, Pal, you know only about 2% of the truth about golf course architecture----are you sure you really want to get into the labyrinthine world of Golf Rules?  

Tom,
As you obviously know, our interpretation or, in some cases, misinterpretation of the intention of rules means much less than the history of their application.  Every decision made by the Supreme Court seems to include something about precedent as a guiding principle... If I had got past first year in law school. I'd know the term for precedent in this case.

App1, Part C has already been interpreted through it's past and current usage to mean that a list of conforming balls is posted and you choose ONE to play with. If the legal 'genius' hired by the OGA to say this rule now means the tournament committee gets to choose that ball for you, doesn't that mean that every tournament conducted under the former interpretation of the rule has NOT been conducted according to the Rules of Golf.  

Somehow, I don't think we'll be seeing this admission in the finding the USGA is about to issue.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
As you obviously know, our interpretation or, in some cases, misinterpretation of the intention of rules means much less than the history of their application.  Every decision made by the Supreme Court seems to include something about precedent as a guiding principle... If I had got past first year in law school. I'd know the term for precedent in this case.

App1, Part C has already been interpreted through it's past and current usage to mean that a list of conforming balls is posted and you choose ONE to play with. If the legal 'genius' hired by the OGA to say this rule now means the tournament committee gets to choose that ball for you, doesn't that mean that every tournament conducted under the former interpretation of the rule has NOT been conducted according to the Rules of Golf.  

Somehow, I don't think we'll be seeing this admission in the finding the USGA is about to issue."

Anthony:

All this is why I think this OGA situation may be so interesting---it may set a Rules precedent and I don't think it will center on the use of a competition golf ball per se, although that could be the vehicle that may take the issue to a decision by the R&A/USGA on the authrority or autonomy of the "Committee" to act independent of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committees. I think it will probably center on a new definition (decision, interpretation, clarification etc) of the roll of the "committee" and more precisely what autonomy a "committee" has to write and use their own Local Rules, Specimen Rules, Special Rules or Conditions of Competition that MAY NOT at the time of use WAIVE a Rule of Golf.

If a "Committee" uses such a Local, Specimen, Special Rule or a Condition of Competition that does waive a Rule of Golf the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are clear under Rule 33-1 (The Committee) that that is not in conformance with the Rules of Golf.

In this case it just may be that the R&A/USGA may not find that the OGA is actually waiving a Rule of Golf by requiring competitors to play a single specified golf ball.

Most all the Rules authorities I've spoken to seem to think that this requirement on the part of the OGA IS waiving a Rule of Golf or in some way conducting a tournament not in conformance with the Rules of Golf. But when I ask them to point to some Rule that is being waived by this or some other reason that this is NOT in conformance with the Rules of Golf they can't seem to point to anything specifically.

Perhaps the best Rules authority I know of seems to think like I do that there may not now be anything in the Rules of Golf that prevents a "committee" (the OGA's tournament committee) from including such a restriction or requirement in their Conditions of Competition.

However, that does not mean that they will not have something to say about this and that's where this may create a new precedent in the Rules and again, it just may deal with a clarification of what a "committee's" autonomy is to do such a thing.

There's little question that for various reasons the R&A/USGA may not now want to condone the use of a "competition" golf ball and the reasons they have so far given (in their Joint Statement of Principles) is that they wish to maintain a single standard on I&B for all golfers.

On the other hand, Pat Mucci has insisted that a committee, or the OGA in this case, could use App 1, Part C, 1a (The List of Conforming Golf Ball Condition) to justify their requirement in the Conditions of Competion (App 1, Part C) that competitors use a single specified golf ball in this Ohio tourament.

I've asked Pat if that was his idea only or if the OGA told him they were going to use that particular "Condition" of Competition to justify this requirement. So far Pat has not answered that question.

And I have said I can't believe that any competent Rules authorities would think to use that particular "Condition" of Competiton to justify the requirement that all competitors use a single specified golf ball simply becasue every competent Rules authority understands the List of Conforming Golf Ball Condition just doesn't intend such a thing, and frankly does not even say such a thing (despite Pat's mention of the wording '"a" brand' ).

So if the OGA did attempt to use App 1, Part C. 1a to justify this the USGA may tell them they are simply misapplying a "Condition of Competition".

But what if the OGA just wrote their own "Condtion of Competition" requiring the use of a single specified golf ball?

That may be the question and that may be an issue the R&A/USGA may take up now and clarify within the Rules. That may be the issue that will set a precedent regarding the autonomy of a "committee" to act independent of the R&A/USGA regarding the use of Local, Specimen, Special Rules or "Conditions" of Competition.

I have searched every single Rules resource I know of to try to find some guidance or precedent on this type of issue regarding the autonomy of a "committee" to act independent of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committees and so far, perhaps unbelievably, it just doesn't seen there is anything at all in the history or evolution of the Rules of Golf that deals with this particular point.

The entire concept of the "committee" is actually only a little more than a hundred years old within the Rules of Golf and I suppose this kind of thing has just never come up before.

But it appears it's about to come up now.  

The point is that there's strong implication that the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committees ARE the final arbiters on the R&A/USGA's Rules of Golf and it appears this issue may prompt them to say so within the Rules of Golf more clearly than they ever have to date, at least how their authority relates to the autonomy of a "commmittee". That alone would be a very important clarification and precedent in the evolution of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

At least, that is my hope.

[john_stiles]

It has been implied by GCA some cognoscenti that USGA would not support OGA, and that the OGA would not have any USGA support in the referenced competition.

Why is that ?   Is it this fear of condoning one ball ?

There are few interesting things in the Appendix I, part C.   First there is the statement that  three conditions are recommended for competition by expert players. Those are drivers restricted to the List,  balls restricted to the List, and the one ball rule.  The USGA wording is ‘recommended'.

Then Appendix I, C, 1.b.   provides that " if the committee wishes to require players to play a brand of ball on the List....".   The USGA wording is ‘wishes'.   So if the committee ‘wishes' not to require that,  will the USGA support the event ?

App I, C, 1.c.  provides that ‘If it is desired to prohibit changing brands and types of golf balls during a stipulated round' then the USGA provides a recommended restrictive paragraph. The USGA wording is ‘desired.'

So, if you have a competition among expert players and the one ball rule is not ‘desired', is the tournament/organization shunned by the USGA ?

What would be the harm if the USGA just said   ‘The OGA is crazy but if the ball is on the List, it is conforming equipment,  we'll be there to assist regarding Rules 1 to 34.'

My wish, desire, and recommendation is that the USGA at least go support the OGA event.

There will be the  ‘varying height of rough at Wing Foot at selected holes'  this year, and the USGA frownes upon this action by OGA.

John
Current and past USGA Champion member

[Anthony Butler]

It has been implied by GCA some cognoscenti that USGA would not support OGA, and that the OGA would not have any USGA support in the referenced competition.

Why is that ?   Is it this fear of condoning one ball ?

There are few interesting things in the Appendix I, part C.   First there is the statement that  three conditions are recommended for competition by expert players. Those are drivers restricted to the List,  balls restricted to the List, and the one ball rule.  The USGA wording is ‘recommended'.

Then Appendix I, C, 1.b.   provides that " if the committee wishes to require players to play a brand of ball on the List....".   The USGA wording is ‘wishes'.   So if the committee ‘wishes' not to require that,  will the USGA support the event ?

John, we touched on the seemingly ambigous wording of that Appendix a couple of pages ago... Aside from that, the intended, accepted, past and current application of this 'competition" rule is that a competitor is provided with THE USGA LIST OF CONFORMING BALLS and required to pick ONE BALL from the list to play with. Other posters in this thread believe the OGA can igrore this legal precedent and still conduct their tournament under USGA rules. The same people would also have you believe that a LIST can be comprised of one name... actually scratch that, the OGA is not giving you a name. It's just A BALL from the LIST OF CONFORMING BALLS.

The reason why the OGA is not naming THEIR COMPETITION BALL is because they KNOW that one or more of the ball manufacturers would cause BIG LEGAL TROUBLE for them before the tournament even started. I can only speculate as to the USGA's in/action on this matter-particularly if they are, as you say, not behind the OGA on the issue.  I know they are country-club gentleman and all, but they managed to crack Arnold Palmer over the knuckles when he suggested you could put the Callaway ERC driver into play for non-USGA competition rounds.

The USGA is now moving up my weasel scale towards Finchem-land.

[john_stiles]

Anthony,

Thanks, I missed that parsing a Wie bit ago.

I await the one ball invitational of the summer, and still hope USGA sends one rules official from their List.

Gosh darn it all,  that's too bad about everyone cowering about being sued and all,

John

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony,

Thanks, I missed that parsing a Wie bit ago.

I await the one ball invitational of the summer, and still hope USGA sends one rules official from their List.

Gosh darn it all,  that's too bad about everyone cowering about being sued and all,

John

John,

I'm going to leave the definition of what "is" is to some of the board's finer legal minds.

After the Ping case, where I thought the USGA had a point, their relationship with the large equipment companies has undergone a basic shift. The USGA is not quite Titleist's bitch, but it's fair to say that no-one in Far Hills relishes the prospect getting into a legal fight with a company that has those kind of resources behind them.

Can't say I blame them. Before you tangle with Fortune Brands or Adidas, you should at least know when one of your own member associations is acting in accordance with the rules you issue. Am I the only person who is shocked by the behaviour of an organization whose committee usually includes at least a partner from one of the nation's largest law firms?

Once you see the IOC and it's associated organizations up close, the USGA comes across as a vaguely competent Parents and Teachers group at a Connecticut boarding school. i.e. Dealing with conflict or diversity of opinions-not their strong suit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()