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.