Finchem on technology

[TEPaul]

Tony:

I'm a little perplexed by your posts, particularly your last one. What is it exactly that we disagree on? Or what is it that I've said that you disgree with?

It seems to me that the last post you made makes a number of points to me that are the very same points I've been making on this site for over two years now, sometimes almost word for word. So what is it we disagree on, or have you really read carefully what I've written?

I do know how the USGA's B&I rules work in a tournament context, by the way. I've officiated about a dozen tournaments per year for the Golf Association of Philadephia and the Pennsylvania Golf Association for about 10 plus years now, so I do know the rules and how they work and filter down from the USGA in a B&I context. Again, the USGA is only directly responsible for the enforcement of their rules in their own thirteen tournments! Those tournaments are the United States Golf Association's own tournments!

Regional golf associations like the Golf Association of Philadephia and clubs like Gulph Mills follow the USGA rules and have for well over 100 years as have most all the golfers in America (certainly the USGA's B&I rules), and I don't know how many times I've mentioned that, so why are you pointing out to me that regional and local associations and clubs do that?

But again, those associations, those clubs, those golfers simply voluntarily COMPLY with the USGA's rules. They don't have to they just do it voluntarily! Don't forget, the Golf Association of Philadephia is a regional golf association, they are not the USGA, and either is any other regional or local association. The same applies to the clubs. None of these ARE the USGA they just comply with their rules.

If the Golf Association of Philadephia, or Gulph Mills saw fit to follow Tony Ristola's B&I rules or mine or their own they have every right to do so! And if they chose not to enforce the USGA's B&I rules they have every right to do so.

I'm not sure what you mean by implying that the USGA might not be enforcing their own B&I rules and regs stringently. Are you suggesting they know that some impliment or ball does not conform to their rules and regs and they are overlooking that fact on purpose for some reason, like weakness. I certainly don't know that and I doubt you do!

But I think the thing I see you saying that I disagree with is how this applies to the law. You seem to think that a manufacturer can take the USGA to court and ask the judge to decide if the USGA can set B&I rules at all. Just read your paragraph labeled #3.

You say: "Either the USGA can set the rules or they cannot. If the court were to rule otherwise, the existing rules would stand......"

You see I'm not sure what you mean by that. But if you mean what I think you might, I, in no way think a manufacturer would ever take the USGA to court and ask a judge to decide if the USGA can set rules at all. Furthermore, I don't think a judge in the land would agree to hear a question like that in his court!  

The fact is the USGA can set their own rules anyway they want to and noone can tell them otherwise--and certainly no judge is going to tell them otherwise unless of course it appears they might be setting them in such a way as to restrain the trade of a manufacturer! And something like that very well may happen if the USGA disregards a manufacturers ability to perpare for that rule in some way. Very definitely this kind of scenario would include rules and reg changes and how and maybe when they were applied. If the USGA gives any manufacturer the time to prepare for a rule--a rules change there shouldn't be a problem.

The Ping case was different. My understanding is that Ping took the USGA to court over the square groove issue but not because Ping had chosen not to comply with that rule. And I don't know whether a "restraint of trade" claim was made on Ping's part, but it may have been. But the issue was asking a court to decide if the Ping Eye2 DID comply with the USGA's B&I rules or not. Far from choosing not to comply Ping thought they did and the USGA said they didn't and the court was asked to decide who was right on a technical interpretation of one of the USGA's B&I rules (square grooves).

There was never a thought to asking the judge if the USGA had the right to set their B&I rules or that rule or any rule, for that matter!

A case could be brought by a manufacturer where it appeared that the USGA had applied a NEW rule in such a manner as to be arbitrary and thereby that would constitute restraint of trade by not allowing a manufacturer time to prepare for that new rule. That scenario was very much the one Callaway used when they sued the RCGA (who was following the USGA's B&I rules) and implied they might sue the USGA too for restraint of trade. That was all very much generated by the fact that the USGA (RCGA) had arbitrarily (or so Callaway claimed) applied a COR limitation of .86 when maybe only five years previous noone was even aware that COR related to a driver face at all!

Had the RCGA (or the USGA) lost that case the judge would likely never rule that the USGA could not set their rules but only that they give a manufacturer relieve for setting them arbitrarily and thereby not allowing a manufacturer time to prepare which might create a restraint of his trade.

The Casey Martin case was wholly different again, and there were those who were fearful (certainly the PGA Tour) that a judge might actually tell them they did not have the right to set their own rules but if you follow that case the judge in Oregon dedicatedly DID NOT tell them what they could or couldn't do with setting their rules but only how one of their rules applied to the physical condtion of one man in the context of how a PGA Tour rule affected the US law known as ADA. Casey Martin alone was legally allowed to ride and the PGA Tour's rule on walking only still stands! Anyone else who wants to challenge that PGA Tour walking only rule has to bring their own case against the PGA Tour.

Again, I think you believe that a judge can or will rule on whether the USGA has a right to set rules for the game of golf. I don't agree with that. A judge might rule on how the USGA is applying their rules in a particular case (manufacturer), particularly new rules, but I do not think a judge would ever rule on whether they had the right to set rules at all.

I think that's where we may disagree. Maybe we're really splitting hairs here but if you look into these things it can explain in many ways why the USGA is doing the things they are now. I guess I'm saying the beginning and end of this  story is not solely because they're weak and a bunch of chickens.

[TEPaul]

Tony:

That's a very good summation of what your friend the lawyer said and I don't disagree with a thing he said.

However, there are all kinds of scenarios on which a case involving "restraint of trade" matters and questions can be brought to court. His was only one side of the possible scenarios. What we are discussing here is another matter and although we do talk about restraint of trade to a degree the more important matter here, to me anyway, is the USGA's right to set rules for the game. We can talk about various court cases about how they might be questioned on exactly how they apply their rules but their ability to set rules is beyond question to me.

Now whether or not everyone, some or noone follows them is a whole different matter. This very fact is ultimately why I think they would win in court if they were sued if this very fact, voluntary compliance, is properly presented!

But voluntary compliance is also very definitely a two edged sword for them! There are many things that are on the horizon this very minute where they could easily lose that voluntary compliance to their rules. And because of that fact and the possibility of it happening is probably why I can in no way understand why you keep saying they are the "LAW" of golf and everyone either will or must follow them! Law to me connotes ability to enforce and does not connote voluntary compliance. I think I understand the law prohibiting murder and it doesn't really connote voluntary compliance or whether to do it or not on my part.

Some people may think they are the law today because people follow them, primarily because they always have but that can very easily change. It did in tennis!

[John_McMillan]

I'm not sure how much of this thread is going forward on logical thought, but ...

The core of the Ping v USGA dispute was over whether the USGA had consistently applied their own rules to Ping's clubs (not over whether the USGA had the right to regulate equipment, or whether the regulations were good ones).  

Ping's complaint was that the USGA had published in their rule book a diagram on how a certain measurement defining club conformity should be made - but had apparently used a different methodology in disqualifying Ping's club (the only square-grooved club that the USGA ruled non-conforming).

I do think that issue was more about personalities than about issues - and the USGA got burned for making it so - so I'm not sure there are great precedants to be gleaned from that battle.

[TEPaul]

JohnMacM:

That's a good post of yours about Ping. It never was remotely about the USGA's right to set rules--it was all about the interpretation of one of the USGA's rules and an extremely complex interpretation at that, as you've implied.

Comparing that law suit to anything that might be going on today is bound to be misleading. Ping was in no way trying to not conform to the USGA rules and regs (as obviously Callaway was!!). In fact Karsten thought they were conforming. The public, for some reason thought that Ping had introduced the concept of square or box grooves, which the USGA was ruling against as nonconforming. Nothing of the kind! Box or square grooves had in fact been legal under the USGA rules and regs for quite a few years.

What Ping did is radius the grooves where they met the face, thereby bringing the grooves too close together on the face to conform to USGA rules and regs, or so the USGA said. The USGA claimed that the "radiused" edge was where the measurement should be taken from and Karsten claimed the inline angle of the groove is where the measurement should be taken from!

And you're right the whole issue got into a persoanl pissing match between the USGA and Karsten Solheim, is the way the story goes. It apparently go so adverserial (previous to the suit) that Karsten refused to submit a club to the USGA for analysis!!

Why did Karsten radius the edge of the EYE2 Ping irons? Apparently it had nothing at all to do with enhancing the "playability' of the EYE2 as to its ability to control the ball out of rough or whatever but was only done so the extremely "square" edge of the groove where it met the face would not strip the paint off golf balls! Karsten was trying to solve a residual problem and obviously the USGA misinterpreted his intent as well as the rational of it all! The USGA obviously let a technical question of very little consequence get in the way of commonsense!

Basically it was a ridiculous issue for the USGA and Ping to let get into court but it was an issue that did get into court and more a question of who would blink first! Apparently they decided to blink at the same time and agreed to settle the issue in the way we know they did!

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  Just reread the thread and want to reiterate a couple points before (hopefully) putting it to bed.

You're major fear is a fear of Finchem.  It comes across like an Oliver Stone conspiracy theory where the PGA Tour and the manufacturers assasinate the USGA, turn Far Hills into The Playboy Mansion, eliminate the rules of the game for their own benefit (sounds like Clinton) and have an orgy at the expense of the game (really sounds like Clinton).  Wholly implausable in my view.  Finchem made a plea for some action on the ball.  It's consistent with what many believe.  It's consistent with protecting the integrity of the game.  I just don't see any sinister plot.

[TEPaul]

Tony:

Oliver Stone conspiracy theories, Playboy Mansions, orgies, Clinton and sinister plots? I think you're the one with the overactive mind!

Do you really believe everthing Tim Finchem says? He runs an organization that represents a couple of hundred tour players that all have contracts and strong connections to all the major equipment manufacturers! I read what you said that the tour pros contracts and connections to the manufacturers are chicken feed compared to some of their other income sources but I don't buy that argument for a minute.

I'm not thinking conspiracy, but for Tim Finchem to ever be involved in B&I rules and regulations I just don't think he even comes close to being the "disinterested party" that it would take to do it effectively!

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:

I do believe Finchem and I'll stand by the attractiveness of golf because it's a "clean" game and take the "overactive mind" comment as a compliment  

[Shane Gurnett]

Guys

All this emotive stuff is getting the better of me. I'm starting to feel guilty. Starting tomorrow, I'm going to make my own personal stand against the modern ball, and go back to using the old Titleist balata. None of this new fangled two peice business for me anymore.

Sure, its going to cost me twenty yards off the tee, but theres not much else to foresake. I'll still enjoy my game as much as the next guy, and at least I wont feel like I'm supporting those who want to make wholesale changes to the world great courses, in the name of changing technology.

If only the Tour would follow suit. It cant be that hard, can it?

[TEPaul]

Shane:

Go for those old Titleist balatas--I hear the price has gotten very reasonable.

Actually, it wasn't long ago I was reading how Titleist was complaining how some of their product line is getting clobbered and they're going to discontinue some of it. When asked who was clobbering it they said the Pro V1. I feel so bad for them but I wonder how they'd like it if some other manufacturer was clobbering it?