[TEPaul]

Glenn Spencer:

The OGA is not going to "learn" anything of value about golf balls in this tournament in which they plan to require the use of a specified or "competition" ball. What they are essentially trying to do is build support whereby other associations will follow their lead thereby essentially forcing the R&A/USGA though basically a grass roots effort to consider legislating a "Local Rule" that can allow tournament committees to require the use of such a specified ball.

The R&A/USGA has said in their 2002 Joint Statement of Principles in no uncertain terms that they are not now interested in considering such a situation and that they support the use of one standard of balls and implements for all golfers, as they always have.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Glen Spencer,

I don't think the goal is to learn anything.

I think the goal is to conduct a tournament with a "competition" ball that's been found to have "dialed back"
performance qualities.


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.
[size=4x]
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.[/size]

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 [SIZE=4X]A[/SIZE] 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.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan Izatt,

I think they've concluded that the ball is going too far and this is their initial step to halt, or retro that progression.  

OK, I buy that.  But, wouldn't it be logical for them to want some idea of whether this one step of specifying a low compression ball took them a little way or a long way towards achieving whatever roll-back they're looking for?

I don't understand the need to "stat" the tournament.

Well, they seem to be going to measure it, so I guess they feel it will tell them something.  So, the "architect" of this approach didn't mention anything about their purpose or measuring its achievement?  Maybe Tom is right; it's largely a symbolic effort to try to leverage the USGA to some kind of action.

I don't know what the "stats" will accomplish.

At a minimum they could answer the question of whether high swing speeds generate disproportionate distance with a low compression ball in whatever the conditions are at the time of the tournament.

Does anyone recall the deadline for the reduced distance spec ball that the USGA requested from the manufacturers ?

I don't recall ever seeing that there was a date set.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Your deconstruction of the language of Local Rules, Part C, "conditions of the competition" subparagraph 1b is very suspect.

They didn't capitalize "a", you did.  In the context of the preamble and the actual suggested condition of competition, it's clear the intent is to allow for all balls that are on the conforming list to be used (at the player's discretion).  In other words, if the condition "The ball the player plays must be named on the current list of Conforming Golf Balls issued by the United States Golf Association." is used for a competition, then that limits the players choice.  If that condition is not used, then the player could choose whatever ball they want, conforming or not.

As I read it this condition is a recommended (but, apparently not mandatory) condition for expert competitions.  Is there another recommended condition that explicitly allows what you suggest.  To try to bastardize this condition to fit your direction seems a stretch.

In the same vein, though, condition 1a is the comparable one for conforming driver heads.  If you interpret it your way then the committee could require all players to play A model of driver head.  Maybe not such a bad idea since the head probably contributes as much as the ball does to distance and accuracy gains from the good old days.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

About a month ago I looked very carefully at that wording you cited and Bryan Izatt is absolutely right about your interpretation of the wording in the "One Ball Condition" (One Ball Rule) insofar as the R&A/USGA would use it (or recommend its use by a tournament committee) for a Local Rule in the "Conditions of Competition" to REQUIRE all competitors in a tournament field to use a single specified ball or any ball that has limited distance characteristics ("competition ball").

The intention of the "Ond Ball Condition" (One Ball Rule) Local or Specimen Rule is clearly to require competitors to play only with the brand and type of golf ball of their choice during the round or tournament. The golf ball of their choice can be any golf ball on the List of Conforming Balls (if that Specimen rule is in effect which it always is in legitimate tournaments).

The wording you refer to "A brand" only means that during the round the competitor must stick with that brand and type of ball HE CHOOSES before the round. The competitor has the choice of using any brand and any type of ball he wants to use from the list of conforming golf balls. Attempting to use the "One Ball Condition" as an alternative for a "Competition Ball" Local or Specimen Rule would be directly condratictory to the choice of golf ball any competitor has bdfore the round under the One Ball Rule.

You may think that's incorrect but I can assure you that is the way the USGA Rules Committee looks at this OGA and "Competition" ball issue because I've spoken with them and a number of other really good Rules authorities about it.

If some legitimate question of the meaning of anything within the Rules of Golf comes up clarification of that meaning is not up to you or me it's ultimately up to the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee, and as I've told you many times they say they are not now in support of a "competition" golf ball or anything else that would effectively create something other than a single unified standard on all CONFORMING balls and equipment for all golfers.

Don't forget, The Rules of Golf and their meaning are what the R&A and USGA say it is just as the meaning of the US Constitution is ultimately what the US Supreme Court says it is.  

As much as you may think you should be or could be you are not a US Supreme Court Justice nor are you a member of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committee who are the only ones responsible for making these kinds of decisions on the meaning and intent of the Rules of Golf.  

However, as I mentioned before there certainly does not seem to be unanimity of opinion even amongst top Rules authorities on how this OGA issue should be analyzed under the Rules of Golf.

The intention of the OGA is clearly to garner grass roots support amongst other state and regional golf associations to put pressure on the R&A/USGA to either do something about the excessive distance the golf ball is going with elite players or to get the R&A/USGA to accept the prospect of a "competition" golf ball.

That may be the OGA's intention but it appears to me that what this situation will probably precipitate is a clarification on the part of the R&A/USGA's Rules of Golf Committee on exactly what kind of autonomy a tournament committee has to create and use their own "Local Rules" and still conduct competitions within what the R&A/USGA considers to be conformance with the Rules of Golf.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Bryan,

I believe the language speaks for itself.

You WANT to interpret it in a singular fashion, yet the language is clear, it says that, "If the committee wishes to REQUIRE players to play A BRAND OF GOLF BALL on the list,.....

Any one reading that understands the words "WISHES TO REQUIRE" and A BRAND OF GOLF BALL.

I think the language is sufficient to provide support for the committee deeming that a specified ball, already on the approved list, will be "The Ball" for purposes of the competition.

Apparently, I"m not the only one who feels that the language allows the committee to require A BRAND OF GOLF BALL for the competition.  I believe the OGA and attorneys have looked at the language and found it sufficient to allow for the play of a required competition ball.

Let's not get diverted from Local Rule Part C sub paragraph 1 b.

Sub paragraphs 1 a. and 1 c. deal with other issues.

Sub paragraph 1 b. is specific to the committee and a required brand of ball.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

The language does speak for itself.  It just doesn't say what you want it to.  You cannot pick words out of the context to support your point.

Some years ago, when I sold my last house, the buyers tried to take some wording in the contract out of context to claim that they were entitled to some light fixtures in the house.  They sued us in small claims court.  The judge laughed at them and threw them out.  He said they wilfuuly ignored the context of the sentence in question to arrive at their conclusion, and they couldn't do that.  It's the meaning of the whole in context, not specific words or phrases that determines the meaning.

Have the OGA and their lawyers publicly said that this competition is being conducted under the Rules of Golf?  Has the USGA sanctioned it as being conducted under the Rules of Golf?  Anybody can conduct a tournament and make up any rules they want.  It doesn't necessarily mean it is conducted under the Rules of Golf.

I know you don't want to be diverted to rule 1a, but don't you agree that you could use it the same way in your interpretation.    Would using rules 1a and 1b together under your interpretation be the best way to take technology out of the game as a determinant of skill?  Everybody plays the same driver and ball.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

I'll requote the language again.

APPENDIX I LOCAL RULES; CONDITIONS OF THE COMPETITION

PART C
CONDITIONS OF THE COMPETITION

1. Specifications of Equipment

b. List of Conforming Golf Balls[/b]

The USGA periodically issues a list of Conforming Golf Balls
that lists balls that have been tested and found to conform.

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 the competition used:

"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 a prudent person could interpret the word " A " to mean singular, especially when it precedes the following words." BRAND OF GOLF BALL"

Note that "Golf ball" as used in the sentence, is in the singular, not plural.

I can't speak to the details as I'm only relating conversation from a third party involved in the issue, and he's not sitting next to me as I type.

It would appear that the OGA and their attorney's or consulting attorney's feel comfortable with the language.

You're correct, I don't want to be diverted into issues under 1 a. or 1 c.

The OGA has announced that they're proceeding with a tournament with a conforming ball that has dialed back performance qualities.

I applaud them for their efforts.

TEPaul,

Amongst other points, I think this effort by the OGA impacts several areas.
1.  It's a warning shot across the manufacturer's bows.
2.  It's a wake up call to the USGA and other GA's that
     something needs to be done about distance.
3.  You and/or Geoff Shackelford have spoken about the
     potential irrelevance of the USGA if they fail to act, or if
     the manufacturers ignore them.  This would seem to
     provide the USGA an opportunity to reassert their
     leadership role, rather than abandon or forfeit it.

What I"m surprised at is your vehement stance opposing the OGA's action.  I would have thought that you would have embraced a long overdue attempt to reign in the ball, even though, it's through the use of a ball currently on the USGA's Conforming List.

[Pete Lavallee]

Does anybody have any soecifics on the brand of ball the OGA proposes to use in their competition? The only thing I have been able to gleen from the conversation here is that the ball is;

manufactuered in Europe
is a low compression ball
is on the USGA approved list

Obviously this ball wasn't manufactuered as a dialed down version of balls frequently used in competition; probably designed to help players with lower swing speeds, no?

Will the balls continue to be marked with the manufactuer's label? Will competitiors be informed of the type of ball so they can purchase some and practice for the competition. Or will they be provided these balls for a practice round in order to calibrate their new carry and overall distances?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul & Bryan,
I believe the language speaks for itself.
You WANT to interpret it in a singular fashion, yet the language is clear, it says that, "If the committee wishes to REQUIRE players to play A BRAND OF GOLF BALL on the list,.....
Any one reading that understands the words "WISHES TO REQUIRE" and A BRAND OF GOLF BALL.
I think the language is sufficient to provide support for the committee deeming that a specified ball, already on the approved list, will be "The Ball" for purposes of the competition.
Apparently, I"m not the only one who feels that the language allows the committee to require A BRAND OF GOLF BALL for the competition.  I believe the OGA and attorneys have looked at the language and found it sufficient to allow for the play of a required competition ball.
Let's not get diverted from Local Rule Part C sub paragraph 1 b.
Sub paragraphs 1 a. and 1 c. deal with other issues.
Sub paragraph 1 b. is specific to the committee and a required brand of ball."

Patrick:

As usual you completely miss the entire gist of what I'm saying here.

It doesn't matter how Pat Mucci or Tom Paul or the OGA or the OGA's attorneys interpret the wording in App 1, Part C 1b and how it might apply to this OGA issue, it only matters how the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf Committees and particularly the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee interprets it.

This is not a matter of how I WANT to interpret it----I'm telling you how almost all of those I've spoken to in the USGA Rules Committee as well as a few on the Board and a number of other Rules Authorities interpret it.  

And I'm telling you from my conversations it may not be unanimous and it appears this is an issue that will very likely be put on the "Docket" to be taken up by the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee to create clarification. And I doubt that clarification will be on the issue of a tournament committee's ability to require the use of a competition ball, I bet the clarification will be what exactly a tournament committee's autonomy is under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf to create their own local rules, as in effect the USGA believes the OGA is doing.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if they decide that this kind of thing might conform to the Rules of Golf they will not use App 1, Part C 1b as a means or mechanism or "Local" Rule to allow it. And the reason for that is that wording simply does not apply to a requirement to use a single specified "competition" ball, as you think it does. That wording only means a committee may require competitors to use balls that are on the Conforming List. The choice of what ball to use on the conforming list is up to the player. You should certainly know that as you've played enough tournament golf.

To REQUIRE competitors to play ONE SPECIFIC ball on the conforming ball list would need a new Local or Specimen Rule and the R&A/USGA has said clearly they are not interested in anything other than a single I&B standard for all golfers.

Do yourself a favor and just read the R&A/USGA's Joint Statement of Principles on that issue.

Don't get mixed up here. This is not necessarily what I'd like to see happen, I'm merely telling you the way THEY look at it.

Frankly, when it comes to how the Rules are interpreted if there's a question about them that goes to the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee, Lew Blakey who just may be the finest Rules authority in the world said it all----he said it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks is right it only matters if his opinion has the votes required to approve a meaning, decision or Rule.  

Do you really think the R&A/USGA's Rules Committees and their Joint Rules Committee is going to ask Pat Mucci or Tom Paul or the OGA or their attorneys to interpret this issue for them?  

[Garland Bayley]

...
The other thing was that the ball is manufactured in Europe.
...

Let me guess.
Slazenger, green Bald Eagle, Spin

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland Bayley,

For whatever reason, I failed to ask the name of the manufacturer.  So, your guess is as good as any.

TEPaul,

What part of the word "acquiescense" did you miss ?

And, Local Rule, Part C, 1 b. states that the committee can require A GOLF BALL for play.

No further amendment is needed.

[Doug Siebert]

Shouldn't the OGA tell the players what ball they will be playing up front?

If I were entering an event there, I'd want to know so I could play a few rounds with the ball and see if it behaves differently than I'm used to in terms of iron distance, spin, behavior in the wind, etc.  It'd suck to show up on the first tee and be handed a ball and told "good luck", that could alienate even those players who would otherwise be supportive of what they are trying to do.

[Anthony Butler]

Patrick_Mucci

Bryan,
1. Specifications of Equipment

b. List of Conforming Golf Balls[/b]

The USGA periodically issues a list of Conforming Golf Balls
that lists balls that have been tested and found to conform.

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 the competition used:

"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 a prudent person could interpret the word " A " to mean singular, especially when it precedes the following words." BRAND OF GOLF BALL"

I would agree that the language  is not 100% crystal clear. A couple of questions immediately occur to me:

1) If the OGA committee wants players to play A particular brand of ball from the list why would USGA rule say that a condition of competition involves posting a list of confirming balls for players to choose from? The intent and the practice (an important part of law) of this rule seems to be that a list is posted to prevent players from using a ball not on the list and therefore risk being disqualified (remember the Greg Norman incident from several years ago when he played a Maxfli ball with markings that had not yet been approved by the USGA and added to the list of conforming balls.) Why the hell would you post a list when the OGA "Condition of Competition" is that there is no choice. I can see 'someone' answering that A list can be composed of only one entry... but the rule as written implies the list is the USGA list of Conforming Balls.

2) "if the commitee wishes to require players to play a brand of golf ball on the List..." That seems to acknowledge the possibility that "the committee" may "wish or require" competitors to play a ball not on the conforming list. The practice of this law is to help competition committes eliminate questions on what is a confirming ball. i.e. the committee can stipulate no x-outs can be put in play. But the most illuminating part of this rule is:

LOCAL RULES-Conditions of Competition
Part 1 c. One Ball Condition

“If it is desired to prohibit changing brands and types of golf balls during a stipulated round, the following condition is recommended:"

Limitation on Balls Used During Round: (Note to Rule 5-1)

(i) One Ball Condition
During a stipulated round,the balls a player plays must be of the same brand and type as detailed by a single entry on the current List of Conforming Golf Balls.

Again if the intent of this condition was to approve one particular ball ONLY for ALL competitors, not just a one specific confirming ball PER competitor, the language does not support this. If they wanted that to be the condition of play, the condition would state: "During a stipulated round, the balls EVERY player uses must be of the same brand and type..."

Enough reputable figures in golf have beaten the drum on golf ball distance as it relates to elite competition that it at bears at least looking at. But in this instance, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than the OGA is conducting a tournament not in accordance with the Rules of Golf as issued by the USGA.

[TEPaul]

Anthony Butler:

You are completely correct in your last post. This is just another example of Patrick Mucci spouting off with no real basis in reality. I can completely guarantee him that the USGA Rules Committee does not look at the List of Conforming Balls Local Rule as a license to allow a tournament committee to require a single specified golf ball to be used by all competitors in a competition no matter what he thinks the wording in that local rule means.

The final authority on the Rules of Golf in America today and for the last 110 years is the United States Golf Association, not Patrick Mucci or the OGA or its attorneys.

Patrick Mucci can make his own interpretations of their Rules and so can the OGA and their attorneys but the final word on the Rules or any ruling on the Rules is The USGA, and not Pat Mucci or the OGA or their attorneys.

As of now it appears the USGA rules authorities do not feel this OGA tournament REQUIRING all competitors to use a single specified ball is conducting a competition under the Rules of Golf.

This is a issue which in a general sense I have no doubt will be taken up by the USGA's Rules Committee, by the R&A's Rules Committee and by the R&A/USGA Joint Rules of Golf Committee.

They may offer an opinion on the use of a competition ball (which they do not now support in principle) but my supposition would be that they will have an opinion on the ability of a tournament committee to use their own local rules or their own interpretations of existing R&A/USGA Rules which the R&A/USGA feel is not in conformance with the Rules of Golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

The OGA is providing the balls to the competitors well in advance of the tournament so that they can play and adjust to it by the time the tournament begins.

That sounds reasonable to me.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
What part of the word "acquiescense" did you miss?"

Patrick:

I didn't miss any part of the word acquiescense. I didn't ask you what acquiescense meant, I asked you WHAT the USGA ACQUIESCED TO in this OGA issue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would agree that the language  is not 100% crystal clear. A couple of questions immediately occur to me:

1) If the OGA committee wants players to play A particular brand of ball from the list why would USGA rule say that a condition of competition involves posting a list of confirming balls for players to choose from?

I don't know the answer, but,
I believe the rule came before the OGA.
It may be to reinforce that the ball required is a Conforming Golf Ball.

The intent and the practice (an important part of law) of this rule seems to be that a list is posted to prevent players from using a ball not on the list and therefore risk being disqualified (remember the Greg Norman incident from several years ago when he played a Maxfli ball with markings that had not yet been approved by the USGA and added to the list of conforming balls.) Why the hell would you post a list when the OGA "Condition of Competition" is that there is no choice. I can see 'someone' answering that A list can be composed of only one entry... but the rule as written implies the list is the USGA list of Conforming Balls.

Again, I don't know the answer and my guess is, to reinforce that the required ball is a conforming ball.

2) "if the commitee wishes to require players to play a brand of golf ball on the List..." That seems to acknowledge the possibility that "the committee" may "wish or require" competitors to play a ball not on the conforming list.

I think the sentences that follow preclude that.

The practice of this law is to help competition committes eliminate questions on what is a confirming ball. i.e. the committee can stipulate no x-outs can be put in play. But the most illuminating part of this rule is:

LOCAL RULES-Conditions of Competition
Part 1 c. One Ball Condition

“If it is desired to prohibit changing brands and types of golf balls during a stipulated round, the following condition is recommended:"

Limitation on Balls Used During Round: (Note to Rule 5-1)

(i) One Ball Condition
During a stipulated round,the balls a player plays must be of the same brand and type as detailed by a single entry on the current List of Conforming Golf Balls.

Again if the intent of this condition was to approve one particular ball ONLY for ALL competitors, not just a one specific confirming ball PER competitor, the language does not support this. If they wanted that to be the condition of play, the condition would state: "During a stipulated round, the balls EVERY player uses must be of the same brand and type..."

1 b. and 1 c. deal with two different areas.

1 c. was brought into existance when players were using different balls with different performance qualities on different holes.  It's sole existance was to preclude the on course selection process with respect to golf balls.

The committee has the choice of implementing the one ball rule, or ignoring it.

Obviously, if A required competition ball were used under 1 b., it would preclude invoking 1 c.

Enough reputable figures in golf have beaten the drum on golf ball distance as it relates to elite competition that it at bears at least looking at. But in this instance, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than the OGA is conducting a tournament not in accordance with the Rules of Golf as issued by the USGA.

How do you draw that conclusion ?

1 b. would seem to allow the committee to designate A required golf ball for the competition.

It's my understanding, via third party sources, that this point was acquiesced on, by the USGA, but, my source could be incorrect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You are completely correct in your last post. This is just another example of Patrick Mucci spouting off with no real basis in reality. I can completely guarantee him that the USGA Rules Committee does not look at the List of Conforming Balls Local Rule as a license to allow a tournament committee to require a single specified golf ball to be used by all competitors in a competition no matter what he thinks the wording in that local rule means.

1 b. seems fairly clear in indicating that the committee can REQUIRE A BRAND OF GOLF BALL.

Evidently, I"m not alone in that interpretation.

You're hanging your entire argument on a conversation you had with someone connected to the USGA who told you that they'd have to amend the rules to provide for the use of A "competition ball".   However, that person may not have been familiar with the language in 1 b. at the time your conversation took place.

Instead of standing in rigid defiance and disbelief, READ 1 b.
And then tell me that a prudent person couldn't interpret 1 b. to mean that the committee can require A BRAND OF GOLF BALL for play.

The final authority on the Rules of Golf in America today and for the last 110 years is the United States Golf Association, not Patrick Mucci or the OGA or its attorneys.

It's my understanding, albeit from a third party source that this is the point the USGA acquiesced on.

Patrick Mucci can make his own interpretations of their Rules and so can the OGA and their attorneys but the final word on the Rules or any ruling on the Rules is The USGA, and not Pat Mucci or the OGA or their attorneys.

You're begining to repeat yourself, which you typically do when doubt begins to creep into your mind

As of now it appears the USGA rules authorities do not feel this OGA tournament REQUIRING all competitors to use a single specified ball is conducting a competition under the Rules of Golf.

On what published basis do you make that statement ?

This is a issue which in a general sense I have no doubt will be taken up by the USGA's Rules Committee, by the R&A's Rules Committee and by the R&A/USGA Joint Rules of Golf Committee.

They may offer an opinion on the use of a competition ball (which they do not now support in principle) but my supposition would be that they will have an opinion on the ability of a tournament committee to use their own local rules or their own interpretations of existing R&A/USGA Rules which the R&A/USGA feel is not in conformance with the Rules of Golf.

Why wouldn't they support the principle of a competition ball ?

Almost every facet of the golf world has expressed an interest in their concerns about the "distance" issue and the golf ball.

And, if they don't support the principle, why have they asked the manufacturers to spec out a ball with dialed back performance qualities ?

They can't have it both ways

A competition ball is a step in the right direction and you're being an obstructionist whilst singing the company tune.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I'm surprised at you. Obviously you've played enough golf and tournament golf to know and understand that if there are any questions in America on the Rules of Golf and their interpretation the ultimate body to ask for a final answer is the United States Golf Association's Rules of Golf Committee.

Have you done that on this OGA issue? And if you haven't why haven't you?

A few representatives from the OGA told me about six weeks ago they'd spoken to the USGA about this issue but as far as I could tell at that time some of the most prominent Rules authorities, interpreters and Rules writers in the world had not heard about it and were not aware of it and most certainly not in support of it when it was mentioned to them.

Is it more important in America to know what Patrick Mucci's interpretation of the Rules of Golf are, what the OGA and its attorneys interpretation of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are or what the USGA's Rules of Golf Committee's interpretation of their Rules of Golf are?  

Again, what is it that you or the OGA thinks the USGA has acquiesced to in this OGA specified ball issue?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

1 b.

The OGA is holding a competition where the committee is requiring that A brand of golf ball will be the designated golf ball for the tournament.

Why would the USGA or anyone else interpret 1 b. to mean that the committee can't require A brand of golf ball for the competition ?

If a tournament is held in Ohio and a single designated ball is used, will the scores not be posted ?  Will the tournament not have existed ?   Or, does the tournament have to be held in a forest ?

[TEPaul]

"You're hanging your entire argument on a conversation you had with someone connected to the USGA who told you that they'd have to amend the rules to provide for the use of A "competition ball".  However, that person may not have been familiar with the language in 1 b. at the time your conversation took place.
Instead of standing in rigid defiance and disbelief, READ 1 b.
And then tell me that a prudent person couldn't interpret 1 b. to mean that the committee can require A BRAND OF GOLF BALL for play."

Patrick:

Believe me, in the last six weeks I've read every conceivable reference in the Rules of Golf and other related Golf Rules reference material that could potentially pertain to this particular issue, very much including the one you cite. And I've spoken to a number of people who are the USGA's Rules authorities and I'm aware of the opinions of a number of people that are considered to be the finest minds in the world on the R&A/USGA's Rules of Golf.

As you know, I'm on the Board of the state golf association immediately adjacent to Ohio and I'm very interested in the correct USGA rules interpretation of this OGA issue, as I should be. About six weeks ago I spoke at length about all this with Alan Fadel, the man on the OGA who they say inspired this entire issue. He gave me the name of another man to speak with about the technicalities of this issue who is either on the OGA or is one of their advisors and who was the President of the Western Golf Association.

Someone connected to the USGA??

Do you know who Lew Blakey is? Do you know who John Morrissett is? Have you ever heard of David Fay? How about some on the Board of Directors who sit on the USGA's Rules of Golf Committee, the committee that makes and writes and interprets the Rules of Golf in America?  

Once again, even if you and I or anyone else out there disagrees with their opinions and their interpretations---whose opinions and interpretations do you think are more central to the ultimate answer on this issue, theirs or ours?  

Why don't you just call the USGA's Rules Committee or some of those who sit on it and ask them what their opinion and interpretation is on this issue, as I have?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's not my issue.

I had the opportunity to have dinner with a fellow intimately familiar with the issues and he related them to me.

A prudent reading of 1 b. would indicate that the committee can require A brand of ball for the competition.

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.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
It's not my issue.
I had the opportunity to have dinner with a fellow intimately familiar with the issues and he related them to me.
A prudent reading of 1 b. would indicate that the committee can require A brand of ball for the competition."

Patrick:

I know its not your issue but in an indirect way it most certainly is my issue.

I realize how dense you can be but I'm only going to say this to you one more time. It does not matter what you or I or the OGA or its attorney THINK is a PRUDENT reading of APP 1 PART C, 1b. or any other Rule in Golf that may potentially pertain to this OGA issue----all that matters in America is the USGA's reading and interpretation of this issue---that is if anyone or any golf association cares to play a competition under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.  

It's really not necessary to say any more on this issue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

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

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()