AT&T Swing Tips

            I had the wonderful experience of working in the pro shop at a host facility for the AT&T National Pro-Am when I worked as an Assistant Pro at Poppy Hills.  It was fun to see the celebrities and professionals as they would come in for practice rounds or just to thank the staff.  In the last couple years I tend to steer clear and watch the Pro-Am from the very best spot in the house – my couch. 

            One of the best parts about watching the Pro-Am on Saturday on TV rather than live, is getting to watch Peter Kostis analyze all the amateur swings from the 17^th hole.  It’s just unique to see so many amateur golf swings analyzed, and I really think there are some key tips that come out of Peter’s analyses.  So here are the main reoccurring tips and their importance to your golf swing.

Start the Downswing with your Lower Body

            Something that Kostis keeps pointing out as a major positive is when a player starts their downswing with the lower body.  This is key to properly clearing your hips and maintaining coil for power and accuracy.  Fred Couples used to say he started his downswing with a slight movement of the left (forward) knee toward the target and that move would set the rest of the swing in motion. 

            If you’re losing power or releasing early, try focusing on starting your downswing from the ground up.  This will set your downswing into the correct sequence for maximum power and accuracy.

Hands Reach the Ball First

            If you’ve heard the term “casting” or “early release” then this tip is for you.  This is actually more of a fundamental to a good golf swing than a tip, but it is key to make sure your hands reach the golf ball first.  If your clubhead gets to the ball before your hands you’ve lost all your stored power and will likely have an angled clubface. 

            When starting your downswing, think about trying to stick the handle of the club into the ground.  If you can hold that thought and position until your hands approach the golf ball you will maintain that angle and be able to properly release the club through impact for more power and control.

Set Your Wrists Before the Top of the Backswing

            This tip ties in with the last.  You’ll notice one difference between professionals and amateurs is that they set their wrists at different times.  Professionals will set the angle about 1/2 to ¾ through their backswing and will maintain that angle until their hands reach the golf ball.  While there are a couple exceptions to the rule (Mickelson and Tiger come to mind) this early set allows the professional to fully coil at the top and hold the angle until the release.

            Amateurs on the other hand, tend not to set their wrists until they reach the top of the swing.  The beginning of the downswing will actually increase that angle and the position can look really solid at that moment.  The problem is that the late set and transition tends to act like a springboard and the club will start an early release and lose all that stored power.  If you manage to maintain the angle in this fashion you will have a lot of power, but it’s extremely difficult to do.

            If you’re having trouble setting your wrists early, try setting your hands for a ¾ swing while making your full turn.   This will set your wrists at the ¾ mark and allow you to better maintain that angle to create more power and control.

            As an update for everyone, it’s been a quiet Rules week.  My journey to Golf House for USGA/PGA Rules School was canceled thanks to winter storm Nemo.  I will be rescheduling and will do a day-by-day Rules lesson blog when I do go.  Next weekend, however, is my first championship assignment of the year at the Peg Barnard Invitational at Stanford University Golf Course.  I will bring any Rules news or interesting happenings from each day.

My Dad's Putter

            Everyone has sentimental, nostalgic days for various reasons.  Today is one of those days for me.  It’s my father’s 66^th birthday.  He died in a private plane crash in March of 2006 while I was still in school at the University of Georgia.  This article won’t be his story, but today I am reminded of something he always did when we played golf.  He always marked the golf ball on the putting green with the toe of his putter before he cleaned it, and for the longest time I thought it wasn’t permitted.

            Then I got myself a Decisions book.  And this brief article will be about how my dad had it right all along because of what Decision 20-1/16 says.  Decision 20-1/16 is titled “Method Used to Mark Position of Ball: and describes the various acceptable and unacceptable methods for marking a golf ball.  Sure enough, while it is not recommended, placing the toe of the club at the side of, or behind the ball is acceptable.  So is using a tee, a loose impediment or scratching a line (so long as the putting green is not tested and a putting line is not indicated).

            What is not permitted is to use a pre-existing mark or blemish to mark the golf ball.  It is “necessary to physically mark the position of the ball.”  The Note to Rule 20-1 recommends using a ball-marker, small coin or similar object, but it uses the word “should” which as we know in Rules jargon means, “You ought to do this, but you’re not penalized if you don’t.”

            So this one’s for you dad, for abiding by the Rules (at least in this instance) and for all the memories of your putter Woody holding steady as the ball gets a simple wipe of the thumb.

Uh Oh! TIO!

            Before Rules fans go screaming to Twitter and Facebook that the PGA Tour got it wrong, let’s take a quick look at the situation Bill Haas just encountered on the 17^th hole at the Waste Management Phoenix Open - Phil Mickelson situation added.

            What we all saw was that Bill Haas’ ball came to rest near a fence that was close to the water hazard on the left hand side.  We were told that his ball had come to rest in the hazard and that he would get relief for the fence so long as he dropped in the hazard.  “Wait a minute,” I can hear all of your cogs turning wondering how he gets relief for an immovable obstruction when his ball lies in a water hazard.  Rule 24-2 does state that a player is not entitled to relief for interference by an immovable obstruction when the ball lies in a water hazard.  The fence, however, was not an immovable obstruction but a temporary immovable obstruction.  We can find the local Rule for handling temporary immovable obstructions at Appendix I-B-7.

            Clause III of the Local Rule for Temporary Immovable Obstructions grants relief for interference by a TIO when a ball lies in a hazard with the caveat that in order to take relief without penalty the ball must be dropped within the hazard.

            Had Haas desired to drop and take relief outside the water hazard he could have done so under penalty of one stroke.   Whether he was going to take relief without penalty or with penalty, the procedure was virtually the same.  He was required to find his nearest point of relief as defined by the local Rule and drop a ball within one club-length of that point.  To avoid penalty he must find the NPR inside the water hazard, for relief under penalty of one stroke he would find the NPR outside the water hazard.  This is one situation where the standard “penalized relief is two club-lengths and relief without penalty is one club-length” does not hold true.

            In Haas’ case he was able to find a spot he could drop still within the margin of the hazard and take relief from the fence without penalty.  

            As the first part of this article was being written, Phil Mickelson hit his shot from the 18^th tee into the grandstands on the left hand side.  The announcers incorrectly stated that he would be getting relief for “line of sight.”  Unfortunately, there is no such thing as “line of sight” in the Rules of Golf.  As you’ll see below, one difference between immovable obstructions as defined in the Rules and temporary immovable obstructions is that interference for a TIO occurs when a player has interference on his line of play (you can also get relief for a TIO that lies out of bounds, whereas immovable artificial objects that define or lie out of bounds are not obstructions and you are not entitled to relief). Although Phil did not have direct interference (lie of ball, stance or area of intended swing) he did have interference on his line of play and was therefore entitled to relief.  Note 3 to the Relief clause of the local Rule permits the Committee to use dropping zones as either required or as an option for relief from a TIO as we saw with Phil’s situation.

Temporary Immovable Obstructions (App. I-B-7):

II. Interference

Interference by a TIO occurs when (a) the ball lies in front of and so close to the TIO that the TIO interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing, or (b) the ball lies in, on, under or behind the TIO so that any part of the TIO intervenes directly between the player’s ball and the hole and is on his line of play; interference also exists if the ball lies within one club-length of a spot equidistant from the hole where such intervention would exist.

Note: A ball is under the TIO when it is below the outermost edges of the TIO, even if these edges do not extend downwards to the ground.

III. Relief

A player may obtain relief from interference by a TIO, including a TIO that is out of bounds, as follows:

(a)Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies must be determined that (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoid interference as defined in Clause II and (c) is not in a hazard or on a putting green.  The player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of the point so determined on a part of the course that fulfills (a), (b) and (c) above.

(b) In a Hazard:  If the ball is in a hazard, the player must lift and drop the ball either:

  (i) Without penalty, in accordance with Clause III(a) above, except that the nearest part of the course affording complete relief must be in a hazard and the ball must be dropped in the hazard or, if complete relief is impossible, on a part of the course within the hazard that affords maximum available relief; or

  (ii) Under penalty of one stroke, outside the hazard as follows: the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies must be determined that (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids interference as defined in Clause II and (c) is not in a hazard.  The player must drop the ball within one club-length of the point so determined on a part of the course that fulfills (a), (b) and (c) above.

The ball may be cleaned when lifted under Clause III.

Where's the Water?

             If I haven’t mentioned it before, I will tell you that a thorough understanding of the Definitions is the key to learning and understanding the Rules of Golf.  This week, as the Tour makes its home at the TPC of Scottsdale for the Waste Management Phoenix Open, is the perfect time to highlight an extremely important and common definition that can be misunderstood: Water Hazard.

            There is no question that the Stadium Course at TPC Scottsdale is a desert course and yet there are water hazards and lateral water hazards throughout the golf course.  Most of the water hazards are pretty clear.  Looking at the 11^th, the 12^th, the 15^th, 17^th and 18^th holes, large lakes and water are clearly present.  It’s when we look at situations like the 3^rd hole that we have to look to the Rules to figure out what’s going on.

The definition reads: A “water hazard” is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course.   (A “lateral water hazard” is a water hazard or part of a water hazard situated in such a manner that it is impracticable to proceed under 26-1b – dropping on a line extending from the flagstick through the point where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard).

The key part of the definition is in the parentheses, “whether or not containing water.”  Despite the fact that the ditch or dry stream bed (whichever it may be) that crosses the third hole rarely, if ever, contains water, it is an open water course and meets the definition of water hazard.  This goes for any drainage ditch or open water course in desert areas.  If it is a feature that naturally holds water when water is present, it is likely to be a water hazard by definition.  The fact that water is not present is irrelevant. 

(For NCGA Rules Officials that read this a great example is the 1st and 18th holes at Poppy Hills Golf Course.  The ravine that runs between those holes occasionally rumbles with the flow of recent rains, particularly this time of year and it is clearly an open water course.  However, there are many months where the ravine has no water, either running or standing.  The ravine does not lose its status as a water hazard, it is still an open water course and therefore a water hazard).

It is important to differentiate between a dry desert area that meets the definition of water hazard and the so-called “Desert Rule” which declares all desert area to be treated as a lateral water hazard.  The “Desert Rule” is not permissible under the Rules and the Committee does not have the authority to mark or declare an area as a water hazard that does not meet the definition.

So the next question becomes what happens if the Committee neglects to mark a water hazard thinking that a dry streambed doesn’t qualify?  For that, we have Decision 26/3.   The Decision states, “It is the responsibility of the Committee to define accurately the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards – see Rule 33-2a.  However, if the Committee has not done so, the ditch is, by definition, a lateral water hazard and the player should be permitted to proceed under Rule 26-1c(i).” 

So this is a great reason to know and understand the Definitions.  If you come upon an unmarked water hazard, you know that you can take relief.  If you are unaware of the Definition, you won’t know you’ve come upon an unmarked water hazard and may end up missing out on valuable relief options.

Just remember if in doubt, you should still contact the Committee or play two balls under Rule 3-3 to avoid unnecessary penalties.  

A New Kind of Deer on Tour

            You won’t find this Rules violation in the Rules of Golf or Decisions book, but this week is laced with controversy over Vijay Singh’s admitted use of Deer Antler Spray.  Let’s cover a few things: 1)What the heck is deer antler spray and why is it an issue; 2) What is the controversy surrounding Vijay;  and 3) general commentary on doping and the banned substance policy on Tour.

Deer Antler Spray: I don’t have antlers, I’m not a deer, what’s the big deal?

            Deer-antler spray, despite its title, is a health supplement spray originating from the company S.W.A.T.S, or Sports with Alternatives to Steroids.  It actually goes by the name “The Ultimate Spay.”  With a company name that dubious, I wonder why players were drawn to it in the first place.  The spray contains a chemical IGF-1 which is on the PGA Tour’s list of banned substances but is not tested for.  The chemical is a known growth factor that helps facilitate recovery and bone cell growth.  It is universally banned in all sports.

Why is Vijay a deer?

            In a Sports Illustrated article highlighting the S.W.A.T.S company and its products, Vijay admitted to using the spray multiple times a day and all over his body.  He was anticipating a body change as a result of using the spray and admits he’s been trying holograph chips and all kinds of methods to help his aging body.  He has come out saying that he used the spray but did not realize it was or contained a banned substance.  Ok.  Actually, he said he was “shocked” to learn the spray contained a banned substance.  Let me get this straight, he was “shocked” that a spray from a company called Sports with Alternatives to Steroids, contained a banned substance.  Ok.  This week he withdrew from the Waste Management Phoenix Open citing a “sore back.”  Presumably, he’s stopped using the spray.

PGA Tour and Anti-Doping

            The controversy surrounding doping in sports has been going on for a long, long time.  It was only in 2006 that it became a hot topic for the PGA Tour, and it wasn’t until 2008 that a set policy and actual testing began.  Steroid use was never considered much of a factor for golf professionals because sheer strength and body building alone really didn’t help the professional golfer.  Muscle mass or the lack of mental control that results from steroid use would actually be a detriment to a pro’s golf game.  With recent advances in this area, human growth hormones in particular, specific kinds of steroids and supplements that fall under the banned substance category really could be beneficial to golfers, especially for healing.  Golfers could overcome pulled muscles, surgeries, bad backs and other aches much more quickly with human growth hormones or similar type substances.  These could really fall under the category of PED (Performance Enhancing Drug).  But there is also no sure-fire test for those, just as these is no test for the IGF-1 chemical in the deer-antler spray.

            It was 2011 that the PGA Tour put players on notice that the deer-antler spray marketed by S.W.A.T.S known as “The Ultimate Spray” contained a banned substance and should be avoided.  The Tour realized the problem when Mark Calcavecchia and Ken Green were endorsing the product.  Yet, the SI article with Vijay’s admitted usage came out a couple days ago.  I’m sorry Vijay, but in this case, ignorance should not be bliss.  I don’t know what the Tour’s penalty for violation of the banned substance policy is, but you’re guilty.  Be angry with yourself all you want, the Tour put players on notice about this two years ago.  Good luck on the Champions Tour.

Penalize Them Already!

            I was hoping that Torrey Pines would bring about some obscure ruling that would allow an in-depth look into a hidden Decision, but instead we’re going to discuss how it could possibly take nearly four hours to complete 11 holes.  Tiger went on record questioning the Tour’s pace of play enforcement wondering whether the group of Eric Compton, Brad Fritsch and Steve Marino were ever warned or timed about their pace of play, so once again it becomes a topic of discussion.

            I’m on record in favor of stroke penalties being enforced on Tour.  I don’t have the official language of the PGA Tour’s pace of play policy, but I know stroke penalties are not enforced.  I also know it’s a rare occurrence that ANY penalty is actually enforced on Tour.  Despite the growing problem both on Tour and with the game in general, it simply isn’t a priority.  I’ll say it once so that it can be stated again:  If you start dealing out stroke penalties for pace of play, the pace will improve.  Period.

            As a player and a Rules Official I’ve both been through and enforced about as many different policies as you can imagine, so I’d like to highlight some of the different options that are available to associations and tournament directors throughout the country.

The Rule

            Rule 6-7 discusses Pace of Play and Undue Delay.  It states that the Committee may make guidelines in order to enforce Pace of Play.  It also states that the penalty for undue delay is the General Penalty (two stokes in stroke play and loss of hole in match play) but that the Committee can modify the penalty to one stroke for the first offense and two strokes for the second offense in stroke play, or loss of hole for the first two offenses in match play.  There is some debate in the Rules world about how this permits Committees to enforce a Pace of Play policy that includes a warning for the first offense (you will see examples below), but that debate is for another time. 

Timing

            The policy of timing groups that are out of position is what we see on Tour and for most professional events – both men and women.  With timing, the Committee sets a standard pace of play.  A group is then considered out of position based on being both behind that set pace and more than a set standard behind the group in front of them on the course.  For example, a group is out of position if they arrive at the teeing ground of a par 4 hole and the preceding group has cleared the putting green. 

            Once a group has been identified as out of position, then an official – typically a rover – is responsible for timing each individual player.  Player’s are given a set amount of time to complete a stroke.  The standard is around 40 seconds.  If a player receives a bad time they are given a warning.  If they have a second bad time they receive a one stroke penalty, a third bad time results in two strokes and a fourth bad time results in disqualification.  My understanding is that this is the policy in place for the PGA Tour, and I know it is the policy for the USGA Opens.  Remember Jim Furyk’s group being put on the clock at Olympic Club.  Furyk responded to the news he was on the clock by snap-hooking his drive on the par-5 16^th hole.  Perhaps he should have kept up in the first place.

Colored Cards

            This policy has been perfected and made famous by the American Junior Golf Association.  Players are given a set amount of time to reach given points on the course.  When I was a junior golfer, there were three checkpoints.  The number has recently been increased to an unprecedented 6 checkpoints.  At each checkpoint there is a timing official who will raise a colored card, green, yellow or red.  If you have a green card, you are on pace and in position.  If you have a yellow card you are either out of position or behind time.  If you have a red card you are both behind time and out of position.  If you receive a red card, you are responsible for reaching the next checkpoint with at least a yellow card or you are liable to penalty.  The numerous checkpoints involved in this system allow for plenty of chances for players to regain ground and know where they stand.  The downside is the necessity to “throw someone under the bus” if you are stuck in a group with a particularly slow player.  In order to escape penalty it must be agreed that one person is responsible for slowing the group down.

            The AJGA has improved upon this policy with a green, red and double red card version.  It incorporates aspects of all the policies mentioned, including timing, colored cards and remaining in position using flagstick-in-hole times.  You can view their policy in its entirety here: http://www.ajga.org/TournInfo/pace.asp

Checkpoints

            There are different ways to do pure checkpoint pace of play.  The Northern California Golf Association runs the most events under the checkpoint system, and has improved upon the system originally adapted from the Royal Canadian Golf Association.  The NCGA uses two checkpoints at the 9^th and 18^th holes.  Missing one checkpoint results in a one-stroke penalty and missing both would result in 3 total penalty strokes (one stroke for the first checkpoint and an additional two strokes for the second missed checkpoint).

 In order to miss a checkpoint you must be over time-par AND more than 14 minutes behind the group in front of you (any time beyond 14 minutes and 59 seconds).  There is an appeal process immediately following the round if certain unforeseeable and permissible circumstances delayed your group.  Specifically, if your group was delayed by the Committee itself, by forces outside your group’s control (i.e. maintenance or acts of nature) or an individual in your group, you could appeal the penalty.  Poor golf in and of itself is not a reason to repeal a penalty and it is important to determine the overall time-par accordingly.

The USGA took the checkpoint policy and now uses it in their amateur championships.  However, they use four checkpoints.  The extra checkpoints add earlier points of information and a warning for the first missed checkpoint instead of an immediate penalty.  In practice in collegiate events I have run, using four checkpoints improves the overall pace of play for the day, and less stroke penalties are given.  On the down side it requires more officials to properly implement the policy.

The Analysis

Some of the problems with professional pace of play lie in the Rule and policies themselves.  The timing policy is one of the most difficult and most subjective to enforce.  When does the timing begin?  Even with the clearest of guidelines, there is still subjectivity to when you start the stopwatch.  It becomes very easy for a lesser-known player to argue bias when they see leaders or more famous players let off the hook when out of position.

Another issue is the lack of definite flexibility in the Rule itself.  It technically only allows the Committee certain penalties, even though the USGA’s own policy is in violation of those limitations.  We saw this issue at the Sybase Match Play.  Rule 6-7 only permits the Committee to use loss of hole penalties for pace of play violations in match play.  Unfortunately for Morgan Pressel, that results in an overly harsh, almost Draconian penalty for a violation she was only being timed for because of her opponent’s initial slow play.  Had the LPGA been free to use an adjustment to the state of the match penalty (see Rule 4 for examples), the breach would have been far less severe (she would have gone from 3-up to 2-up instead of 3-up to 1-up) and less controversial.

It’s time Rule 6-7 was modified.  Part A should cover undue delay, which is different from pace of play.  It should have the general penalty for any violation.  Part B should discuss pace of play, which should permit the Committee any penalty structure it sees fit (which is exactly what’s already going on).

In the end, the key to successful Pace of Play policies is enforcement.  A policy that is rarely enforced is rarely followed.  Start issuing a stroke penalty to the final group on Sunday when they fall a hole behind and they’ll play faster.  Most importantly, get that first slow group to play more quickly and the whole round will do so.  Tiger had a point.  The pace of play on Tour is abysmal.  There was no reason that they should not have been able to complete around 30 holes on Sunday and they weren’t even close.  It was even worse that today’s coverage had snails and turtles lapping it.  I watched an hour of coverage at lunch.  I managed to see Tiger hole a putt on the 10^th hole through his tee shot on the 12^th.  One hour and less than 3 holes.  That’s just brutal.

What's your solution to Pace of Play?  Comment Below.
(You can also see the complete text of the aforementioned pace of play policies on the "Pace of Play" page of this blog).