[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

Seems unlikely to be the DC Tour.  It's an older ball, isn't it?  I don't see it on the current USGA approved list.  It's been reported that the ball was added to the USGA approved list in June, so it must be a new ball.  

The manufacturer is not going to want it to be known what the ball is, if it is indeed shorter than the competition's balls for the swing speed range reported on Shack's blog.  If it is only 6 yards shorter off the driver compared to something (Pro V1??), then I think that's probably well within the range of variation amongst the current models of ball available.  Heck, the Pro V1 is probably 6 yards shorter than some of the other premium distance balls.

Glen,

I don't think the course matters to the experiment.  Or the scores achieved for that matter.  Since they have no control group for the experiment, I'd think that all they will be able to do with the measurements they'll be taking is to determine the ball speed, distance and trajectory across the spectrum of swing speeds presented by the competitors.  That, in itself, should be interesting if they publish it.

[Jim Sweeney]

Bryan I:

Whatever ball is being used, it is not an OGA produced ball. It is a ball that is already in production. This was clear in the OGA initial announcements.

The ball will have no product identification marks on it. It will carry OGA markings of some sort.

Since the approved ball list is based on manufacturers' markings, if the OGA "re-brands" a ball and wants it to be on the approved list, it must be submitted to the USGA with its new markings.

Say the ball is the DT Solo, with the Titleist marking relaced by the words "OGA Tournament Ball." It would not be eligible for the approved ball list until submitted to the USGA. One would assume that process would take very little time, given that the original version is already on the list.

The submission of the ball to the USGA for approval is a technicality necessitated by the I&B rules.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

I understand your points.  

I must admit that I was assuming that the OGA was not going to get its branded version of the ball approved by the USGA, but rather rely on the fact the underlying ball was already approved.  The stories seem to suggest that the ball was approved in June under the manufacturer's brand.  And, there is no OGA branded ball on the current list that I can see.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The submission of the ball to the USGA for approval is a technicality necessitated by the I&B rules - Jim Sweeney

So true. Remember what 'happened' to Norman in Hartford, or to Sluman a couple of years ago at the Buick classic. One of the Pro V1s he was using didn't have a side stamp (it was a factory slip-up, they now scan every ball) and it cost him a DQ.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim K,

Since the OGA is supplying the ball, I assume there is no possibility of DQ.  Or even to approve the ball as branded.

[George Pazin]

Talk about damning with faint praise....

How would you like to be the manufacturer of a ball that is chosen for its reduced properties?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bryan,

Since the OGA is supplying the ball, I assume there is no possibility of DQ.  Or even to approve the ball as branded.

..thereby limiting the event to an exhibition.

[John_Cullum]

Just because a ball is not on the conforming list does not mean the ball cannot be used under the rules. The only requirement is that a ball conform to the specs stated in the appendix. Balls that are on the list have been tested and found to conform, but the list is not intended to be exhaustive. A tournament committee can adopt the list in its conditions of competition, or it can limit the players to playing only a single entry during a round, but neither action is required.

[Glenn Spencer]

I stand corrected. I forgot that they had the Ohio Mid-Amateur at Windy Knoll in either 04 or 05. This could be a significant control group, a lot of similar and exactly the same players potentially.

[Jim Sweeney]

John C:

You are correct, although a tournament committee may require that the ball be listed on the approved list, and all that I know of d0. This requirement must be listed in the notice to competitors. If this requirement is not in place, and a competitor uses a ball not on the list, he is at risk should the ball he used subsequently be found to be non-conforming.

[TEPaul]

Since this issue and story broke I've had a couple of phone conversations about it with Alan Fadel and another member of the OGA I'll call John K.

Alan apparently just wasn't going to mention who the manufacturer was but I believe I recall hearing that the OGA bought $10,000 worth of this ball, which I recall it mentioned was on the USGA conforming ball list.

The only way Alan and John K described the ball was that it was relatively "soft" which I guess means it's relatively high spin.

He also said OGA contracted with a ball performance test company (I think he said it was an Italian company) to test the player performance of it in this tournament.

This is one issue of this OGA tournament----eg the ball's performance.

But another issue I wanted to discuss with Alan and John K is this issue of how or how much this kind of thing (a tournament committee actually "requiring" players to play a single specificed ball only) fits into the whole idea of "committee" autonomy (or lack of it) to create and define their own "local rules" or "conditions of competition" apart from perhaps the way the USGA Rules Committee views this kind of thing and whether or not it falls within "playing within the rules of golf" in this particular case, or similar cases in the eyes of the USGA Rules Committee.

In my opinion, perhaps the biggest outcome of this OGA tournament will be that the entire idea of what a "committee's" autonomy is (or not) will be further defined and clarified by the USGA Rules Committee, the R&A Rules Committee, and then the Joint R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committee that essentially defines and writes all things to do with the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

I think the entire functional concept of the "committee" in golf and the Rules needs to be analyzed and perhaps redefined and updated. Not much has evolved that way since the unification meetings between the R&A and the USGA back in the 1950s.

Alan and John K are extremely interested in this particular aspect as well, and they are supporters of the USGA. It's not like they're trying to precipitate some break-away move here.

I think this OGA issue will evolve the whole concept of the "tournamant committee" ("committee") in golf and what it can and can't do within the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

And I think ultimately that's a very good thing.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think the committee's right to make a restrictive condition of competition concerning the golf ball is a rules issue. It seems pretty clearly to be the sort of thing that the Rules of Golf does not intend to interfere with.

The important question is whether by imposing such a restriction the committee endangers the ability of their tournament to attract a quality field. That makes it a political question requiring the committee to judge the attitudes of the golfers they wish to attract to their event.

I think this is one area where the Rules and the politics of balls and equipment can be kept separate. To the extent this is possible, it's a good thing.

[TEPaul]

Brent:

Again, I couldn't disagree more.

Of course a committee's right to restrict the golf ball used in any tournament is a Rules issue, or should be.

This OGA event in which they essentially are going to restrict the competitors ball use to a single type and make of ball is not in the Conditions of Competition section of App 1 of the Rules of Golf.

Should it be? Perhaps

But at least it should not be a matter of confusion on the part of OGA, or any association or club and including the USGA Rules of Golf Committee, and other Rules experts. At the moment, some of the best minds in the world on golf rules cannot come to a consensus of opinion on whether or not OGA is doing something wrong here in the context of the Rules of Golf. That atmosphere is no good. Actually, the OGA has gone to the trouble of getting some Rules expert to write an opinion paper on why they are not waiving some Rule of golf and not conducting a tournament outside the Rules of Golf somehow. Why did they go to that trouble? Simply because there is some real confusion in this area.

This is an issue that goes to the heart of who exactly is responsible for various "Conditions of Competition"---eg the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committees who write all the Rules and Decisions in golf or any and every committee at any club, association or whatnot?

At the present time, it seems the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf committees do not even contemplate who has autonomy in this area. This is how little the concept of the “committee” in the Rules of Golf has evolved.

Some of the best minds (but certainly not all of them) in golf Rules think or thought the OGA by REQUIRING that all competitors play a single specified ball (a competition ball) was waiving a Rule of golf or somehow not conducting the tournament under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. But what Rule of Golf would they be waiving? None that I’m aware of.

One also needs to look at some recent precedent in App 1, Part C in the Rules Book, and ask why, for instance, a “One Ball” Condition exists in that section? Or why a “Conforming Ball” Condition exists in this section of the Rules book?

Why did the R&A/USGA create and write such  “Conditions of Competition” in App 1, Part C?  Did they do it only because someone once asked them to or did they do it for the convenience of unified or standardized wording if committees and tournament committees chose to adopt such a condition in their tournament “Conditions of Competition”? Or did they do it because they feel that a “committee” must not adopt conditions of competition without having those conditions mentioned in the Rules of Golf book?

This is the question. If they simply felt that a committee could adopt any condition of competition they felt like as long as it didn’t waive a Rule of golf then why, when someone asked them about a “one ball” condition or a “conforming club” condition of competition did they not just say; “Go ahead and do it and write your own wording since we don’t feel it waives a Rule of Golf so we don’t care what you do or write in that regard?

Why didn’t it just happen that way? Probably because, without saying so, the R&A/USGA may feel that they need to write “conditions of competitions” that a “committee” can adopt. Maybe they feel that’s their responsibility, and not the responsibiltiy of any "committee". Maybe they feel a "committee" just doesn't have that kind of autonomy in a Rules context.

[Brent Hutto]

Some of the best minds (but certainly not all of them) in golf Rules think or thought the OGA by REQUIRING that all competitors play a single specified ball (a competition ball) was waiving a Rule of golf or somehow not conducting the tournament under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. But what Rule of Golf would they be waiving? None that I’m aware of.

No Rule is being waived. That's my point.

If the OGA were trying to make a Condition of Competition that was waiving a Rule or implementing just any old arbitrary thing it would be a different matter. If the PGA Tour's version of a One Ball rule is in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Rules (which in my opinion it is) then specifying a single ball as the OGA has would also be legitimate (which in my opinion it clearly is).

If the putative best minds in golf want can't see that this is best allowed to exisit as a Condition of Competition outside their Rule-making and if they want to put the entire onus for fighting over the golf ball on themselves, then they are making a huge mistake. It is manifestly in their best interest and in my opinion also in the best interest of the game not to try and take some kind of hard-line stand on this. Pure ego and hubris is the only reason I can think of.

It would be an entirely different matter if the OGA were trying to actually intrude on the Rules per se. For instance, by doing something different with spike marks or declaring non-water areas as lateral hazards. But they are not.

[Jim Sweeney]

Gosh, TEP, you raise a lot of issues in your last two posts.

I think it's pretty clear in the rules that the committee in charge of the competition or, if there is none, the committee in charge of the course, is empowered to determine the conditions of play. There's a whole Rule dedicated to the committee. About the only restriction is that they cannot make a local rule which conflicts with the rules of golf. The committee cannot allow the players to use 15 clubs, for example.

But could they restrict the number of clubs to 13? I believe they can, because the rules allow for up to 14. No rule is broken. I don't think they should do so, I only assert that they can.

I'd say the same for the restriction on permissable balls, i.e. a "tournament ball," so long as the ball conforms to the rules.

They can, but should they? Maybe this is the question that keeps ANGC from going to a "tournament ball."

So the local committee has autonomy. But it is valuable to promote consistency among competitions using similar local rules. So the local rules in the appendix are suggestions made by the USGA to local committees. Like the Decisions on the Rules of Golf, they are primarily responses to local committees that have asked for clarification on how to handle an unusual circumstance. The one ball rule was a response to the Tour's concern about players customizing their ball choices to changes in conditions during a round. (This has become, IMO, the most overused local rule in golf.)

Anyway, the wording of the "locals" in the rule book is simply the USGA saying, "this is the way we'd do it, we suggest you do also." But the local committee is not required to use those exact words.

You know, I am sure, that last year the USGA formally codified the colors designating water hazards (yellow) and LAteral Hazards (red). Before then the marking colors were only suggestions, though they were used universally.

So I'm not sure the concept of "the committee" needs to be closely scrutinized. I just don't see a problem. The only problem I do see is on the back of almost every scorecard I pick up, which almost all state "USGA Rules apply except when modified by the following local rules." Of course, the rules cannot be modified, only added to consistent with the rules. IN other words, many of the committees don't know what they are doing with the local rules. I think that writing the local rules for member clubs would be a great service by golf associations; I don't know of any that offer it.

BTW, on a long past post you took the position that the OGA was indeed waiving a rule or using a rule contrary to the rules with this "tournament ball." Have you changed your mind, or are you thinking about changing your mind?


Brent H.:

The USGA has not made any comment on the OGA's decision that I'm aware of, other than that they are interested in the seeing what happens. So I don't understand your comment about the "putative" great minds in golf.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent H.:

The USGA has not made any comment on the OGA's decision that I'm aware of, other than that they are interested in the seeing what happens. So I don't understand your comment about the "putative" great minds in golf.

The "greatest minds in golf" phrase was Tom Paul's. I don't know if he meant for that to refer to the USGA per se or what. So by "putative" I mean "so-called in Tom Paul's previous post". As usual in these discussions, we're discussing his take on the situation rather than any verifiable reality.

[TEPaul]

JimS and Brent:

OK, if you'd prefer I won't call them 'the greatest minds in golf Rules'.

Let's call them those on the R&A and USGA (generally on their respective Rules of Golf Committees and including the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee) who are responsible for interpreting and writing the Rules of Golf.

It really doesn't matter what we think is right or wrong or is the correct interpretation on any situation within the Rules of Golf book, the Decisions on the Rules of Golf book, it only matters what they think.

If some issue comes up for interpretation they are the only ones who make that interpretation. Furthermore, as LB says, even on that committee regarding what interpretation gets put in the Rules of Golf, it is not exactly a matter of right or wrong, it's only a matter of whether a particular interpretation gets enough votes to carry the day.  

Those interpretations on Rules matters I don't personally agree with I refer to as "Rules Creep". Those interpretations I do agree with I say nothing.  

[TEPaul]

"BTW, on a long past post you took the position that the OGA was indeed waiving a rule or using a rule contrary to the rules with this "tournament ball." Have you changed your mind, or are you thinking about changing your mind?"

JimS:

When this OGA issue (this tournament they are about to conduct) first came up, I don't believe I said I think they would be waiving a Rule of Golf. What I did say is a very good number of some of the best Rules minds I know in golf apparently thought so. And that included, at that time, some who work for the USGA Rules of Golf Committee and a few on the Board of the USGA.

Before I spoke with any of them I looked in every area of the Rules of Golf book, the Decisions book, the book entitled "How to Conduct a Competition" and a few books on the history of the Rules of Golf, including Tutts' "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf".

I couldn't find anything that indicated to me that this requirement on the part of the OGA that all their competitors use a single specified golf ball did waive a Rule of Golf.

I also looked very carefully at App 1, Parts A, B and particularly C (Conditions of Competition) and how they are written and somewhat supported back and forth and referenced in the Rules, Rule 33, particularly Rule 33-8 and the Decisions on that Rule. I also did something of a study on the concept of the "committee", when it entered the Rules of Golf (around 1900) and how it has evolved in a Rules context since.

Then I emailed a man I consider to be perhaps the best mind on Rules and who has a good deal to do with R&A/USGA Rules Committee interpretations and asked him what he thought.

At that point he hadn't heard of the OGA situation but he heard about it by at least the next day. He said he didn't think that it sounded like that situation did waive a Rule of Golf but that it may become a situation for R&A/USGA interpretation anyway. His final email simply said 'stay tuned'.

Then I called Alan Fadel of the OGA and talked to him about all this for a while. He asked me to speak with a man I call John K who is also with the OGA and apparently was also with the Western Golf Association. He also asked me to call John Popa, the OGA's Executive Director but I haven't done that yet.

In the intervening months I've talked to them both again.

This is an issue that was just not clear and probably the reason the OGA turned this tournament into virtually an Invational that states on the invitation that a single specified ball would be used. I did ask John K what would happen if a competitor showed up knowing that a tournament "Condition of Competition" required him to use a single specified ball but for some reason he chose anyway to play with some other ball on the conforming ball list even if it was just that other ball that conformed to the "One Ball" condition if the OGA even uses that? He said he thought they probably would just not accept his scorecard. I said; "You mean he would be DQed?" He said, "no we just wouldn't accept his scorecard." I think my final remark was; "What's the difference?"

The OGA has even gone to the trouble of having someone they consider to be a Rules expert write a position paper postulating that this type of "condition" of competition or "requirement" would not be waiving a Rule of Golf or something that should in any way be considered by the USGA as playing outside the Rules of Golf.

It very well may come to just that and nothing more may be done or the USGA may for some reason say they do think it is playing outside the Rules of Golf.

Logically, I doubt they will do that though.

In another lengthy conversation with Alan Fadel of the OGA we both sort of agreed that this kind of action on the part of the OGA could at least be considered as the OGA running some interference and cover for the USGA to just go ahead and write and adopt another "condition" in App 1, part C, Sec. 1 (where the conforming ball condition and the One Ball condition reside) that provides committees with the option of requiring competitors to use a single specified ball only---eg a "Competition Ball" condition of competition, in fact.

But there are some other issues that probably need to be considered by them, particularly the USGA, if they decide to do that. One of them would be what to do about it for handicapping purposes and how it will eventually impact their stated principle that all golfers play under a single unified standard of I&B.

[Jim Sweeney]

TEP:

I follow you. I know from my personal experience that the discussion within the USGA about a committee requiring the use of restricted equipment has been continual for at least 18 years. The first discussion I am aware of was during what I'll call the "grooves era." The question being "can the PGA Tour require their members to use v-grooves when U-grooves are legal under the rules? (I think they can.)

It may be instructive that the USGA has not come out with a decision against a committee being more restrictive than the Rules concerning equipment used in its competition. Kind of like the Supreme Court passing on an appeal of a lower court's ruling.

Of course, that could change. I would be very surprised if this is not a regular topic in the rules committees' deliberations.

[John_Cullum]

If the OGA, or anyone else involved for that matter, asks the USGA for a ruling on their single ball theory, isn't it the USGA's policy to answer?

[Anthony Butler]

Some of the best minds (but certainly not all of them) in golf Rules think or thought the OGA by REQUIRING that all competitors play a single specified ball (a competition ball) was waiving a Rule of golf or somehow not conducting the tournament under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. But what Rule of Golf would they be waiving? None that I’m aware of.

No Rule is being waived. That's my point.

If the OGA were trying to make a Condition of Competition that was waiving a Rule or implementing just any old arbitrary thing it would be a different matter. If the PGA Tour's version of a One Ball rule is in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Rules (which in my opinion it is) then specifying a single ball as the OGA has would also be legitimate (which in my opinion it clearly is).

If the putative best minds in golf want can't see that this is best allowed to exisit as a Condition of Competition outside their Rule-making and if they want to put the entire onus for fighting over the golf ball on themselves, then they are making a huge mistake. It is manifestly in their best interest and in my opinion also in the best interest of the game not to try and take some kind of hard-line stand on this. Pure ego and hubris is the only reason I can think of.

It would be an entirely different matter if the OGA were trying to actually intrude on the Rules per se. For instance, by doing something different with spike marks or declaring non-water areas as lateral hazards. But they are not.

I'm not sure how–if there is a published list of conforming golf balls (and equipment) issued by the USGA and you don't allow competitors to use the items on that list in competition in accordance with the other Rules of Golf–you can call it a tournament conducted by the rules of the USGA. P.S. I think Tom Paul has gone 'soft' on this issue based on his previous posts on the subject.

[TEPaul]

"P.S. I think Tom Paul has gone 'soft' on this issue based on his previous posts on the subject."

Anthony:

Why do you say that?

I'm not trying to turn this into another discussion of whether or not the USGA should endorse the production of a "competition" golf ball but in some ways the OGA has precipitated that issue in a Rules context by their requirement that all competitors must use a single specified golf ball (even if that golf ball may be conforming and not be technically some dialed down distance ball). As far as I know that has never been done before by a recognized state golf association, but now it will be.

I just think the issue is important enough that it should be addressed in the Rules of Golf in some form, that's all.

The R&A/USGA should write something into the Rules of Golf such as into Appendix 1, Part C (Conditions of Competition) that this requirement can be used by a committee or something should be put into the Decisions on the Rules of Golf that they don't recommend it.

I think this issue has become important enough now where they need to make some interpretation on it and not just use their standard response when they don't want to address something which generally is; "We do not contemplate...." or their other general reaction that they will not answer any RUles question on "a" competition because they don't consider, for some reason, that it is being conducted under the Rules of Golf.

Some on the OGA say that the USGA is OK with this requirement the OGA is about to use but having spoken with the USGA Rules of Golf Commmittee and a number of others on the USGA in the last few months it didn't exactly sound that way to me---it sounds like there might be quite a division of opinion on this issue.

I feel this has become an issue where there should be no confusion at all on the part of the USGA or any other "committee" who wants to consider this question and issue.

Personally, I'd like to see the USGA write wording on a "condition of competition" for a committee's use of a specified single type golf ball in a competition whether that be one of a distance reduced ball or not.  I'd hope they could work out the other issues that seen to concern them such as how it might effect handicapping or with the issue of their stated principle that they continue to endorse a single standard of I&B for all golfers.

This is precisely the type of issue which is not an incidental one from which interpretations are made that end up going inot the Rules of Golf.

From my postion, one of the issues here (which may not concern most on this website) that I think should be better defined and evolved is what is the overall autonomy (or lack of it) of a "committee" in a Rules Context as it relates to the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committees to enact something like this on their own?

I just think the USGA (and R&A) should make this issue more clear within the Rules of Golf or else be a bit better prepared to give a consistent answer to this question than they apparently are or have been since this OGA issue came up.
 
 

[Brent Hutto]

So is a hickory club competition a violation of the Rules? Does holding such a competition transgress on the USGA's turf by placing an additional condition on equipment? Does the USGA needs to write an example local rule for hickory tournaments?

No, no and no. This isn't a difficult issue and the answer is obvious.

[TEPaul]

Brent:

On the face of it, it might seem your hickory club analogy would be apropos to this OGA issue, but think about that for a second.

Has any hickory club tournament required that the competitors use only hickory via their own "condition" essentially putting it in a "Condition of Competition" sheet as App 1, Part C of the Rule Book provides?

And if they did what do you suppose would happen if someone played with clubs that weren't hickories? Would they be DQed? Would the committee not accept their card as the OGA explained they would not do if someone used another ball on the conforming ball list?

These are some real questions which hickory tournaments have obviously just never asked or dealt with.

What if a State golf association like OGA decided to conduct one of their major state tournaments requiring just hickory clubs? Do you think it might become a "condition of compeitition" issue then? Do you think it might become an issue of what kind of autonomy a "committee" has to require a particular condition of competition?

I certainly do. If it wasn't the OGA who asked the ultimate Rules authority in America, the USGA Rules Committee, about the appropriateness of it within the Rules of Golf I'm pretty sure a number of competitors or potential competitors in that OGA major state tournament certainly would ask the USGA Rules Committee about the appropriateness of it if the OGA decided to require the use of hickory clubs only.

This competition ball issue is a complex and somewhat controversial issue, and it seems to be a fairly major subject in golf today and for that reason alone I think the USGA should address it one way or another if a major golf association is going to begin adopting a single ball requirement, or if some major tournament such as The Masters is thinking of adopting such a requirement as a "competition" ball.

Some of you guys just look at the Rules book on this issue and see that there seems to be nothing in the Rules that covers this issue or reflects on it and so it is therefore a non-issue. I agree that there seems to be nothing in the Rules of Golf regarding it but that doesn't mean to me that it's a non-issue or will continue to be, and that the Rules of Golf should not somehow address it or reflect on it.

That would probably be the case if the Rules of Golf never changed but they do change. The history of Rules changes is a fascinating study that basically reflects both how, and particularly WHY they change to address issues that are real at any particular time in golf's history. This may be one of them. Personally, I think it most definitely is one of them.

You need to ask yourself why they have a "One Ball" condition or a "Conforming Ball" condition or a "Conforming Club" condition in App 1.

If those things were just non-issues to the USGA Rules of Golf Committee then why didn't they just say that and refuse to put them into the Rules book effectively telling "committees" to just do whatever they wanted to on those issues as long as it didn't waive a Rule of Golf.

Did they put those "conditions" in the Rules book simply for convenience of standardized wording? Perhaps, and this issue seems to be no different than those others once were, and are now.

The very fact that there seems to be so much lack of consensus of opinion on this issue around the country, even in a Rules of Golf context, and even amongst some really good Rules officials tells me this needs interpretation and clarification. And interpretation and clarification in the USA in golf Rules ultimately comes from the USGA's Rules Committee, or should.

[Brent Hutto]

If a state amateur championship were held as a hickory-club event, that would be a very silly tournament and almost no good players would play in it. Likewise, I suspect that having a reduced-distance competition ball is going to strike a lot of elite players as pretty silly and they won't want to play in the tournament. Or maybe not, it's up to them.

None of that makes a hickory-club tournament or a one-ball tournament a violation of the Rules of Golf. There's lots of oddball formats with which you could organize tournaments but you don't need special Rules to deal with them. If a tournament does not waive (and thereby violate) any of the Rules of Golf then its existance is not a Rules issue.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()