Rules Refresh

The two major governing bodies have tweaked the rules of our grand game, so grab some pine and let's see what we think of their efforts.  Here's Rex Hoggard's lede:

The R&A and USGA released the 2016 edition to the Rules of Golf on Monday with four significant changes. 

While most of the attention during the current four-year update cycle has been focused on the impending ban on anchoring during a stroke (Rule 14-1b), which was announced in May 2013, the overall theme of the most recent edition is simplicity.

I'm not so sure that simplicity is the actual result, but I used that excerpt to make a point about the anchoring ban.  Golf.com posted one of their ubiquitous slideshows, this one under the especially unpromising title of Great Moments in Anchored Putting History.  I know, you're not the only one to spit out their coffee, but it's actually quite interesting.... No not the Keegan-Adam stuff, but to remind us that anchored putting has been around for longer than anyone realizes.

This is their first slide, a photo that Keegan Bradley tweeted back during the comment period:

1900s: Just how far back does anchored putting go? This photo, famously tweeted by Keegan Bradley from Riviera this year, shows an early 1900s golfer using a putting stroke that looks very much like Bradley’s.

By the way, whatever became of Keegan?  Is he a teaching pro somewhere?  OK, I guess that's not important now...

The horse is no longer even in sight of the paddock, but it's worth noting how slow to move the governing bodies can be, and how averse to conflict as well.  I remain fully supportive of the anchoring ban, but I strongly wish they had taken the action ten years earlier, if not back in the 1900's.

So here's Ryan Herrington's take on the other rules changes:

Withdrawl of Rule on Ball Moving After Address (Rule 18-2b)

Golfers will now be considered innocent until proven guilty—novel concept for sure—when it comes to being penalized for their ball moving after address. Rather than automatically being deemed to have caused the ball to move—and thus subject to a one-stroke penalty—starting in January only when the facts show that the player actually caused the ball to move (or more likely than not caused the ball to move) will he or she be subject to the penalty. This adds some subjectivity to the situation, but also allows some much-appreciated leniency.

I am great relieved to finally see this profound injustice addressed, but that's the primary source of my quibble with Rex above.  Even from the simple explanation above it's unclear how players will adjudicate this issue, but that's where the networks' dramaticly improved audio capture technology may provide some fun.

The simple fact is that this is not really a factor in our weekend fourballs, because our greens are not such that balls want to wander.  Here's Shack's concise take on it:

Also significant is the leniency built into the new Rules of Golf for balls that move on greens mown too tight because the R&A and USGA don't want to do anything about the ball going too far.

I haven't seen anyone address this but I'm assuming this is through the green?  Anyone know the answer there?

Limited Exception to Disqualification Penalty for Submission of Incorrect Score Card (Rule 6-6d)

Thomas Pagel, senior director of rules and amateur status with the USGA, says this is not the “Tiger Woods Rule” as born out when Woods was allowed to play on at the 2013 Masters despite failing to access a two-stroke penalty after an improper drop during his second round and not be DQ’d for signing for a score that was too low. The way the change in the rule is written, however, it will allow players (like Woods) who are unaware before they sign their cards that the card is incorrect because the score doesn’t include penalty strokes the players did not know happened not to be kicked out of an event. Instead they will be allowed to continue to compete after adding the penalty strokes to their score (any strokes for the unknown penalties plus two more strokes for signing the incorrect score card).

You seem a little defensive there, Tom....and there's really little need to be.  Lawyers are wont to say that bad cases make bad law, and that certainly applies to the Tiger situation, but I'm sure we all can agree that players that sign their cards in good faith don't deserve to be DQ'd.  And I'm note sure how I feel about the two-shot penalty for signing the incorrect card, because adding four shots to a Tour player's score is the moral equivalent of a DQ...

Obviously the Tiger drop at the Masters is exactly the situation envisioned by this rule change.  But the reason that Tiger was allowed to continue in the tourney is that the rules officials, specifically Fred Ridley, effed up.  He had received a telephone heads up from David Eger that the drop might have been illegal, but discounted it based upon his relationship with Eger.  When Tiger inadvertently confirmed the illegality in his post-round interview, Ridley was left with Eger all over his face.

But here's where things get a bit muddled on this one:

In all other cases in which a player returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, the penalty remains immediate disqualification. "This is not going to cover simple math errors," says Pagel, who noted the discussion on this point has gone for years. "If you had a 5 and wrote down a 4, you will still be disqualified. This is only if you forgot to include a one- or two-stroke penalty that you did not know occurred. Whether it was ignorance of the rules or applying one stroke rather than two."

I get that the wrong score will still get you DQ'd, and it probably should, but let's remember that it's more likely the marker that writes down the wrong score.  But the player has to keep his own card as well, just to confirm before signing.  But it's always been my understanding that the player andf markers' responsibility ends with the entry of each indvidual hole score, i.e., there's no match involved?  So what is Pagel saying here?

Modification of Penalty for Single Impermissible use of Artificial Devices or Equipment (Rule 14-3)

Again, here’s an instance where players had previously been penalized regardless of intent and are now going to be treated more leniently. If you had a device, such as a range finder, that has prohibited features under the rules, such as a wind gauge or slope monitor, it was presumed you were using those features and you were disqualified from a competition for using the device. The change to this rule allows for loss of hole in match play and a two-stroke penalty for a first offense in using the non-conforming device. Subsequent breaches of Rule 14-3, though, would result in DQ.

Ah yes, the Schrager rule.  This is perfect, as the retroactive change will piss him off all the more....

Most commentary on this change has focused on this instance:

A beneficiary of this rule would have been D.A. Points, who at the 2014 AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am was disqualified for using a foam ball under his arm while taking a practice swing during a wait in his round. Did the punishment really fit the crime? The USGA and R&A weren't quite so sure, and thus will cut golfers some slack.

OK, didn't Juli Inkster get nailed on this as well?  But rangefinders are the crux of this issue, and I find this somewhat unclear if the impermissible device is discovered after multiple uses?  Is it two shots per use, or is it a DQ?

My quibbles aside, I do think these changes are for the better, though they do raise the ambiguity bar as a result.  But, in terms of providing inevitable grist for the mill that is golf blogging, it's Win-Win, baby!