To those who have followed the blog
from the start will remember last year’s segment “Live from Rules School.” Well,
this year due to both time constraints and technical difficulties I was unable
to provide a running blog of the proceedings from Rules School.
Needless to say now, Rules School is
complete and yet again I must wait a year to attempt to complete the Road to
100. Congratulations to all of my peers
who achieved this feat in the class. I
won’t name anyone, but you know who you are, and while we all have heard that once
you cross that 92 threshold the difference between a perfect score and not is
more about reading and silly mistakes than knowledge, a perfect score is a
great achievement worthy of praise. So
job well done!
I, of course, managed to spin myself
out of the correct answer on both of my misses.
Also, of course, I will not share any details beyond that about the exam
itself, so do not ask. For those who
will take it this year, trust your instincts and take your time.
What I will talk about, are the new
and interesting things I learned and will take away from the workshop. This was my first Advanced PGA/USGA Rules
Workshop. Attendance is limited to those
who have achieved a score of 85 or better on the exam within the past four
years. Because of this, the types of
questions that are asked are of a more philosophical level, both to the
instructors and during breaks amongst ourselves. Below I will go through some key points I
think will help everyone trying to better grasp the Rules.
First, however, I must give my
thanks to David Staebler and Larry Startzel for their wonderful presentation
and expertise. It was my first workshop
with both of them and I was delighted by their insights, “aha moments,” and
delivery. I look forward to
communicating and hopefully working with you both in the future.
“Authority Trumps Prohibition”
In many places throughout the Rules
of Golf, certain Rules seem to contradict each other. It leads to confusion as to which Rule
applies and what a player can actually do.
A recurring phrase that arose during the workshop was that “authority
trumps prohibition.” This means that if
a Rule specifically authorizes a player to do something, that authority
overrides the prohibition of another Rule.
Here’s a perfect example: Rule
13-4 specifically prohibits the player from touching or moving loose
impediments in a hazard when his ball lies in the same hazard. This is in conflict with Rule 12-1b which
specifically authorizes the player to remove loose impediments in a hazard when
searching for a ball believed to be covered by loose impediments in the
hazard. Well, authority trumps
prohibition. Because Rule 12-1b
specifically authorizes the player to move loose impediments in that specific
situation, the penalty under Rule 13-4 does not apply.
This phrase has also been
interpreted as, “the specific overrides the general.” Again, the general Rule 13-4 prohibits moving
loose impediments in the hazard, but the more specific Rule 12-1b permits the
player to move the loose impediments in the specific situation of searching for
the ball believed to be covered by loose impediments in the hazard.
Smart Phones
We’ve been searching for
clarification on the use of smart phones as distance-measuring devices now that
compasses and weather applications are now permitted. We received that clarification.
First, remember that a smart phone
may be used as a phone at any time, so long as you are not using it to breach
the Rules (calling your swing guru for advice, recording your swing to see your
flaws during the round, using the level to measure the slope on a green, etc.). The specific issue has been whether or not
distance-measuring apps were permitted.
Previously, because the use of a
compass during the round was prohibited, all the smart phones that had a
compass installed on the phone (and were not removable) could not be used as
distance-measuring devices. After the
Decision change, the new concern became the level application that could not be
removed. I will try to best explain the
correct logic and interpretation now:
The level is an app that yes, could
be used to breach the Rules. But it
could also be used legally. What if you
just wanted to see if the ball-washer was level? That is not a breach of 14-3. So step one is that as long as the smart
phone does not have the capability to directly measure or gauge conditions
which might affect your play, it is legal for use as a distance-measuring
device. So if your phone has an actual thermometer or anemometer (wind gauge),
or application to that effect, it is not legal for use as a DMD. Step two is
that the distance-measuring app you choose must also not be able to measure or
gauge conditions that might affect your play.
Specifically, if the distance-measuring app can calculate or measure
slope/gradient, that distance-measuring app is in breach of the Local Rule in
14-3/0.5 and may not be used.
The general Rule of thumb is to now
think of the app itself as the “device.”
This of course comes with the exception that if your phone breaches step
one above, it still isn’t legal even if the DMD app itself is legal. It took a while to get to this position, but
there are a whole bunch of smart phone users who will be very happy. This definitely beats, “if you can afford a
smart phone that has a DM app, you can afford to buy a legal DM rangefinder.”
Clarification is still necessary
though. This does not change the
previous stance on DMD lasers/rangefinders that have slope functions
available. Those devices are designed to
specifically measure distance and must be held entirely to the standard of the
Local Rule. If the laser has the ability
to measure slope at any time, whether through use of a Mode button or removable
face plate, the device is not legal for use as a DMD. The same would apply to a
PDA device. If it has a slope function,
the device is not legal even if that function is turned off or not used. Is it possible the ruling there may evolve
and change in the future as it did with smart phones? Maybe.
Maybe not. That’s for the Rules
of Golf Committee to decide, and they’ll tell us if it does.
Fine Print: Committee’s Decision
and Rules of Golf Committee Referral
I used to misinterpret the fine
print under Rule 34-3. First, it states
that the Committee’s decision is final.
The following paragraph explains that a player or players may request
that a statement be sent to the Rules of Golf Committee for their opinion as to
the correctness of a ruling. I used to
think this meant that if the Rules of Golf Committee came back and said the
ruling was incorrect, that it would be overturned. This is not the case. The statement means exactly what it
says. The player can request a statement
for their opinion as to the correctness of the ruling. Meaning, they can find out if the tournament’s
Committee was right or wrong, but regardless of the result, the ruling will
stand. The real lesson from this mini “aha
moment” is that the text means exactly what the text says: the Committee’s
decision is final.
Clubs
At the first multi-day seminar I
taught, the introduction question that was asked of participants was, “What is
your least favorite Rule?” I answered
Rule 4, Clubs. And why shouldn’t it be
my least favorite? It’s one of the few
Rules with a maximum penalty and adjustment to the state of the match
penalties, if you breach the Rule between two holes, some of the Rule 4
sub-rules apply the penalty to the next hole and some apply to the hole just
played, and there is never any explicit clarification between wear and tear and
damage. It’s a perfect storm for
confusion, but a deeper look at the Rule reveals an even deeper logic and
clarity with some interesting points as well.
1. It
is impossible to breach Rules 4-3a(i) and 4-3a(ii). I’ve never tried to apply a penalty, but it’s
good to know that I never will have to either.
2. The
difference between applying the penalty to the next hole or the previous when a
breach occurs between holes is whether or not a player could gain an
advantage. Under Rules 4-4a, 4-4b and
4-3a, a breach cannot assist a player until they have started play of a hole. Also,
when you boil it out, breaches of 4-4a, 4-4b and 4-3a are all the same
thing. You’ve added a club when not permitted.
What good is an additional club until
you’ve had the opportunity to choose from the additional clubs for a stroke? So
if the breach occurs between holes, it could only have helped the player on the
previous holes. But under Rules 4-1 and
4-2, a breach could potentially assist the player on the next hole (if you
carry a medicus – a non-conforming club – you could swing it between holes to
work on tempo).
3. The
difference between wear and tear and damage.
Rule 4-1b tells us that a club that was conforming as new is deemed to
conform through normal use, even if it has been worn to a point that would
normally be non-conforming (a face so worn that it is actually concave in a
spot). However, if a club has been
damaged in the normal course of play rendering it non-conforming you could use
it for the rest of the round, but if you start a new round with it you would breach
4-3c because what you’re doing is carrying a non-conforming club in breach of
Rule 4-1 (remember the penalty statement to 4-3c says “See Penalty Statement
for Rule 4-1 or 4-2”). If it was damaged
in the normal course of play how is that not wear and tear through normal use? Well damage is a violent, abnormal action,
whereas wear and tear is a gradual and incremental change in the club’s
characteristics.
While these are certainly not the
only lessons learned this week they come to the forefront of my mind and stick
out the most. Again, thank you to the
wonderful instructors and I look forward to next year.
