The NEW Decisions are Here!

            At long last, the Revisions to the Decisions on the Rules of Golf are in!  And boy, there are some doozies…  Today is a very exciting day for a Rules geek like myself, and while some of these changes seem small, maybe even nit-picky, every change is important to correctly applying the Rules.  There are only 3 new Decisions this year, but two of them have a significant effect on certain rulings.  There are 59 revised Decisions, most of which have very little impact and have been only slightly modified for clarification purposes, and then there are 24 withdrawn Decisions along with one lone renumbered Decision.

The Newbies

            The first new Decision, 14-3/18, permits the player to access weather reports through an app or internet browser on a “multi-functional device” (ok, we’re talking about smart-phones).  This takes us one step closer to getting smart-phones the green light as distance measuring devices.  (The next step comes later).  Previously there was a lot of debate about whether “general” weather information constituted a breach of the Rules with regards to learning about temperature or wind-speeds, humidity or any other meteorological factor that could influence the player, but now the prohibition is officially limited to exact information.  The kind of information that can only be gathered by a thermometer an anemometer or other specific meteorological tool.

            If you call the second new Decision the “Tiger Rule” I will block you on Twitter and everywhere else.  New Decision 18/4, without going into the entire text, basically states that if you can’t tell the ball moved with the naked eye it didn’t move (Also see the joint USGA and R&A statement about the Use of Video in Administering the Rules).  The masses have already started chirping that this is the “Tiger Rule” and it only came into play because of the recent penalty to Tiger Woods whose ball moved while removing loose impediments and it was only discernible through video evidence.  The use of video has been reviewed for a long time and I can guarantee this specific Decision was reviewed and discussed prior to the Tiger Woods incident.  You can look back to the 2012 U.S. Senior Open with Corey Pavin who was penalized for a very similar indiscernible movement and to any number of other events where player’s incurred penalties for movement they didn’t know had occurred.

            There’s a catch though… The new Decision leaves room for the Committee to decide that the movement WAS in fact discernible to the naked eye and therefore the penalty for playing from a wrong place (ball at rest moved then not replaced) should be applied.  I don’t want to be on that Committee any time soon…

            The last new Decision doesn’t affect our current interpretation of the Rules because it was basically taken out of another Decision.  New Decision 18-2b/1 (replacing the former 18-2b/1 which has been nixed) talks about the effects of gravity and that gravity is not an agency to be considered when applying the no longer new Exception to Rule 18-2b.  This was taken out of Decision 18-2b/11 and given a prominent place at the front of the 18-2b Decisions and further clarifies what we already had to work with.  Just as before, in order to determine that the player did not cause the ball to move with virtual certainty, it must be known or virtually certain that some “observable factor” DID cause the ball to move.

The Revisions

            There were a lot of revisions, most of them very minor (i.e. Decision 23/13 was changed from “Clod” of earth to “Lump” of earth), but several themes arose out of the clarifications and there were actually some revisions that reversed previous rulings.

            The first theme was to clarify in specific Decisions that players need to be aware they are breaching a Rule in order for there to be an agreement to waive the Rules.  I think a clear example of this is the revised 2-1/4: Two Holes Purposely Omitted in Match.  Currently, if two players purposely omit 2 holes of their stipulated round during a match, they are both disqualified.  Come 1/1/2014, the Decision is modified so that the players would only be disqualified if they were aware that omitting holes was a breach of Rule 2-1.  This is a relatively significant change in the world of “Rules Theory” where ignorance is very rarely bliss but it is consistent with the thread that in order to be waiving the Rules, you have to know the Rules first.

            The second theme is clarity.  The words “amended for clarity” or “expanded for clarity” are rampant (in a good way) throughout the Amendments to the Decisions.  This is why we have a Decision that talks about a Lump rather than a Clod of earth.  But there are also some significant developments in clarity in these changes.  Decision 25-2/0.5 now has an illustration to explain when a ball is embedded. Decisions 23-1/6.5 clarifies that the removing loose impediments from a spot where the ball is to be placed is ok specifically through the green and not in hazards.  We also see several changes where the Decision refers to a different Decision to get the facts.  They have added the facts back into the question so that you don’t have to flip back and forth to understand the answer.  And another type of clarification is additional references.  There are several revised Decisions that have added reference to specific Exceptions in order to add clarity.  The last kind of clarity comes with detail.  The most notable added detail is in the new 27-2a/1.5 which is a clarity Decision in and of itself.  Now it puts a specific limit of approximately 50 yards that a player can go forward before he is no longer able to play a provisional ball (provided the player is not going forward for a different purpose such as getting a new club or ball).

            There are some notable reversals of fortune in the Amendments as well.  The most notable is Decision 14-3/4 which currently prohibits the use of a compass.  Come 1/1/2014 that Decisions will specifically allow the use of a compass.  This is the second step in getting smart-phones into the “usable as DMD” category and was formerly the largest hurdle.  Another reversal of fortune comes with regards to tree roots.  Decision 33-8/8 currently prohibits making a Local Rule providing relief from exposed tree roots as GUR.  Come 1/1/2014, if the ball lies in a closely mown area, the Committee may make a Local Rule treating interfering roots as GUR.

            There are also some notable “recommendations” that come through the Amendments.  The new 33-1/2 now notes that canceling a round when reducing the number of holes in a stroke play competition, is not recommended and is highly undesirable (remember Kapalua?).  The new 33-8/16 also states it is not recommended to implement a Local Rule making all stakes on the course immovable obstructions.  The new 4-1/1 recommends that while the new Groove Condition is being more widely implemented starting in 2014, it is still only recommended for competitions with expert players.

The Rest

            There are 24 withdrawn Decisions which all tend to follow the theme of redundancy.  These removed Decisions were all either restating the Rule or were already stated in another Decision.  For example, 33-8/3 specifically disallowed play of a second ball in match play.  Well, if you read the Rules we all know you can’t play a second ball in match play AND there is still a specific Decision that covers that (3-3/9).

            One thing that was slightly disappointing about today’s announcement was that there was no link to the new Decisions text available from the News link.  We had to find it through several links and pathways.  I, however, will link them for you HERE.  ENJOY!

USGA Pace of Play Symposium

            Today I was able to attend the USGA’s much anticipated Pace of Play Symposium via webinar.  It was a great collection if very intelligent and experienced professionals from the golf industry with creative, viable solutions to the pace of play issue.  From my perspective, a lot of what came from the symposium was reinforcement.  There were a lot of principles put forth that were common knowledge to some of us in the industry, but had only been generalizations without the hard data to back up those assertions.  What was very comforting was to see the union of data from public, daily play and tournament play and to see the leaders of the industry recognize the different roles pace of play has in each of these 2 fields.  I want to highlight some of the key findings from the individual presentations and roundtables and credit the presenters as much as possible.

Field Size and Tee Time Intervals

            I put these two together because in many situations they are in essence the same thing, or the same end result.  Field size is for tournament play and tee time interval is for public play (also for tournament play, but with tournaments that is determined largely by field size).  The bottom line emphasized throughout the symposium was that tee time intervals cannot be too close together and field sizes cannot be too large.  It really is all about traffic on the golf course and when you overload the course, the pace suffers.  Hard data from research by Matt Pringle and also Lou Riccio showed how decreasing the tee time intervals was a recipe for disaster. 

            Many courses are trying to “maximize” their tee sheet through 9, 8 and even 7minute intervals.  The truth is that using those decreased intervals is hurting their tee sheet and their business.  One of my responsibilities at my job is to procure 116 qualifying sites for our championships.  A decent portion of the courses actually charge us for using 10 minute intervals vs. their own 9 minute intervals stating that they lose 2-3 tee times from the increase.  The problem is that by putting so many players out so quickly, they are hurting their own facility, whereas the 10 minute intervals we use is actually manageable. The data showed that if the “cycle time” is greater than the tee time intervals the course is going to slow down, and slow down significantly.  So the bottom line from the research is to use tee time intervals appropriate for your golf course and that intervals less than 9 minutes are almost never a good answer.

            For tournaments, the answer is an appropriate field size.  Former PGA Tour Commissioner Deane Beman stated that with a 144 player field, or 72 players in a morning and afternoon wave, a 4:20 pace of play is only achievable on an absolutely perfect day.  You “Can’t beat the math,” he said.  AJGA Executive Director Stephen Hamblin supported that sentiment when he discussed calls he had received from other organizations that wanted to emulate the AJGA pace system and achieve the same results.  He heard these organizations using 90 players in a wave for a two-tee start and it’s no wonder they have pace of play issues.  It is simply too many players on a golf course (30 groups).

            I ran into this issue several weeks ago at the Stanford Intercollegiate.  We used the four checkpoint pace of play system and on two of the 3 rounds, our final group finished in over 5 hours.  I was approached with the question, “why?”  Why, I said, because we have 90 players in a single wave, it’s simply too many groups on the golf course.  There is nowhere for them to go.  The fact that our second round had the final group finish in 4:50 was one of those nearly perfect days that Commissioner Beman was talking about.

            So the end of the story is that courses should stop trying to push as many players as possible onto their course and use reasonable tee time intervals and tournament administrators need to recognize the consequences of increased field sizes.

The Courses

            There was a lot of discussion and several presenters that discussed the role of golf courses in the pace of play issue.  One of the more telling presentations came from David Hueber who discussed the role of the 1990’s golf course design culture that increased the length and difficulty of courses and therefore the pace of play at courses across the United States.  There was discussion about the economics behind why courses followed and still follow that trend, and how it can be reduced.  One of my favorite presentations was early on from Jim Moore at the USGA who demonstrated how they are trying to help courses adjust their maintenance practices to assist with pace of play and maintenance costs.

            The hope is that contemporary course designers will start to take pace of play into consideration and note that difficult doesn’t mean great, but it is also the role of course managers and superintendents to recognize where they can save time for both their own staff and for players.

The Rules

            I am certainly not an advocate of attacking the Rules as the answer to solving the pace of play issues, but there were several valid arguments and issues raised during the symposium.  The most spirited argument came from Deane Beman who argued vehemently in favor of bifurcation to make the game more playable for the average golfer.  He made valid points that the Rules of Golf have already been bifurcated and are currently bifurcated in some ways and that further changing the Rules for professionals and amateurs would not be a detriment and would increase playability and enjoyment for the weekend golfer.

            There was a question during the morning roundtable about reducing the search time for a lost ball.  Currently, a five minute search is permitted before a ball becomes lost and that 5 minutes under various pace of play policies slows a course or tournament field down.  We were told that the 5 minute search time is being reviewed and maybe (a big maybe) in the future that time may be decreased.  The general comment was made that the Rules as a whole are being reviewed in part with pace of play in mind.

Player Responsibility

            One of the Rules Official mantras is that the player is responsible.  For pace of play, for knowing the Rules, the player is responsible.  What came out of the symposium did not change that, but emphasized that there is more to that than three words.  Jeff Hall pointed back to the Committee “with a capital C,” and that there are many things the Committee can do and need to do to help the players improve pace of play.  This doesn’t mean to hand-hold players through checkpoints, but make sure all the tools are available and that everything we can control is done with the player’s interests in mind (from crosswalk control, to policy education, signage, course setup and even restroom/snack locations).  Stephen Hamblin emphasized how the AJGA 6-checkpoint policy still holds the player accountable for their pace but provides all the tools necessary from the Committee.

Important Notes

            Kevin Heaney from the SCGA, while discussing tournament policies hit upon a “methodology” if you will, that applies across the board with regards to pace of play:

-Set Expectations

-Make the Expectations Clear

-Communicate the Expectations

-Enforce the policy

He emphasized that the expectations have to vary based on the customer.  A tournament program can be more aggressive than a public facility because it’s a closed environment, but like Troon Golf, public facilities can set their expectations, clarify them, communicate them and then hold their customers to those expectations.  The key is to make those expectations reasonable and to rid the industry of the myths that accompany pace of play. 

            Some of those myths include the 4 hour round, one group is the entire problem and that players are solely responsible for pace issues.  Getting rid of these myths includes both individual and club outreach. Heaney did a great job highlighting different kinds of individual and club outreach programs from pace of play pledges to the SCGA’s online resource center and success stories highlighted in their Fore magazine.

            Something that came up several times was distance-measuring devices.  Why are we not using distance-measuring devices?  Hamblin asked what is the difference between gathering distance from sprinkler heads and using a DMD?  This is why the AJGA now permits DMD’s and he advocated that it should become the rule.

My Take

            First, the symposium was far more refreshing than I expected.  I expected to hear the same dogma that has been repeated and that simply wasn’t the case.  I believe this was a productive, insightful gathering that revealed important findings and methods from across the industry.  Some important key points that I want to emphasize or re-emphasize:

-Decreased Tee Time intervals are a bad idea

-Increased field sizes are a bad idea.

The above two items go hand in hand and your pace of play is mathematically linked to the intervals you use and the field size you choose.

-Course maintenance can both improve pace of play and reduce costs.  Creative management can create a win-win for both customer and facility.

-Public Outreach is not only important, but it really does work.

-We now have hard data supporting these principles, but it is up to Committees and facilities to use the research to support their efforts to help pace of play.

The Stanford Intercollegiate and...Chocolate?

            I can’t take any credit for the method, nor can I say we’re the first one to try it, but there is now a proven successful motivation for quicker pace of play in women’s collegiate events – chocolate.

            The second round of the Stanford Intercollegiate is complete, and it was complete in a much quicker fashion today.  There were only 3 missed checkpoints, one of which was caused directly by a lengthy ruling, and there were no potential penalties. The finishing times for the final groups were 17 minutes faster of the first tee and 19 minutes faster off the tenth tee. So what factors contributed to the improved pace of play?

            You can decide which was the most important for yourselves:

The Second Round is Always Faster

This may be true, but it’s not a steadfast rule.  Generally once fields are re-paired by score and players are more comfortable with the tournament and course the pace quickens.  It also helps that regardless of whether today’s hole locations were friendlier or not, the players were more comfortable with them.

Better Communication From the Starters

            Our starters are trained on what to say before they ever start a field in an event of this caliber and we also go over specifics of notes to say to each specific event.  We increased the emphasis on pace of play in this morning’s starter speech and it showed.  Player’s only listen to one or two things you say on the tee, so making sure the one thing they remember is pace of play can make or break the day.

A Penalty Was Issued in the First Round

            I’m a huge supporter of the belief that in order for pace of play to improve penalties must be enforced.  When you use a checkpoint policy it is very easy to let the potential penalties off the hook even when they don’t have a good reason for missing the checkpoints.  We have a very good and experienced Rules Committee and the penalty that stuck yesterday was earned.  It also sent a message to the field.  Anytime a pace of play penalty is upheld it reverberates through the field and everyone adds a little quickness to their step.  It’s a simple fact – no one is afraid of your pace of play policy until you actually use it.

A Prize of Chocolate

            I would like to believe that this surprise was the biggest contributing factor to today’s improved pace of play, but I know logic would support one of the 3 previously listed reasons.  Part of the improved message on the tee today was that if a group made all four checkpoints they would get a prize at the scoring table.  The prize? Chocolate.  Hershey’s Kisses to be exact.  It’s a method that would never work in a men’s event (not trying to be sexist but guys just don’t light up at the sight of chocolate the way the women today did), but it was incredibly fun to see the girls’ excitement at such a seemingly small gesture.  We would ask them if they had made all their checkpoints (we knew the 3 who hadn't anyway) and if they remembered being promised anything by the starter.  Most of them lit up and said "Yeah a surprise!"  We then handed over the Hershey's Kisses, and rather than the slight slump of minor disappointment I thought might occur, I witnessed wide-eyed excitement at every group! I have every intention of continuing this method where possible and continue testing new ways to improve pace of play, including a different chocolate candy treat for the final round tomorrow...  

Stanford Intercollegiate and Simon Dyson

            With one round of the Stanford Intercollegiate in the books, I can highlight a bit of yesterday’s happenings.  It seems like months since I’ve run an event, even though I’ve been an official at four in the past month, and it took a minute to get my bearings again in the morning meeting.  With that said, we did have an interesting day yesterday with a couple events worth noting.

Decision 13-4/31: Touching Sand in Bunker During Backswing

            There was one two-stroke penalty yesterday when a player brushed sand during her backswing when playing her ball from a bunker.  The breach was brought to our attention by a opposing team’s coach, which is always a touchy situation.  We had the official on site make sure to get the facts from the player and not assess the penalty based on the coach’s account and sent a rover in for the double check.  The facts were simple as stated above and unfortunately that results in a two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 13-4b.  For reference see Decision 13-4/31.

Pace of Play AGAIN,Again, again

            The most notable incident from yesterday was the pace of play penalty we issued. It has become clear that despite clear verbiage and the widespread use of the checkpoint system, that most coaches and players just don’t seem to get the policy.  Please review the NCAA/USGA Four Checkpoint policy in the Pace of Play section of my page to get the best understanding of this story.

            The group in question missed their first checkpoint at hole #5.  They were 19 minutes over the pace of play and 21 minutes behind the group in front of them.  A fairly egregious breach.  To their credit, the hustled and were back in position through the 9^th and 13^th hole checkpoints.  During the appeal we’re told they were waiting on the group in front of them up to the 2^nd shot on the 16^th hole.  Unfortunately, somewhere between the 16^th hole and the 18^th hole they fell back.  They missed the 18^th hole checkpoint at 22 minutes behind the pace of play and 17 minutes behind the group in front, making them subject to a one stroke penalty for the 2^nd missed checkpoint.

            During the appeal the claim was that the group in front “rabbited” on them, a phenomenon I would like to discuss here. ”Rabbiting” is when a group realizes they are slow, takes off by playing abnormally quick and leaves the group behind them without a chance to make their checkpoint.  We’ve seen this happen many times, and in many cases it is a reasonable justification for waiving a pace of play penalty.  Typically it is reasonable when players were waiting on the hole prior to the checkpoint or on the tee of the checkpoint hole and then a ball search or something else held the group back on the checkpoint hole.  For this group, the last time they were waiting was the 16^th hole.  They gave us no reasons or indications that anything but either poor or slow play held them up on the last two holes.  We even witnessed their play on the final green, where they showed no inclination or awareness of their speed of play. 

            During the appeal, the players stated that they not only had no awareness that they were behind on the 18^th hole, but did not know or understand the policy that was in effect. Ignorance is not bliss in this case.  Needless to say, the coaches were not happy when their players came back and revealed the Committee’s decision.  The lengthy discussions with the coaches that followed showed that the coaches did not have a complete understanding of the policy either.  The main discussion revolved around whose responsibility it was to inform the players of their status. The correct answer is…it is the player’s responsibility to understand the policy and be aware of their status.  It is a checkpoint official’s responsibility to tell the players if they have missed their checkpoint.  The player is permitted at any time to ask an official or to check their own watch to determine their pace of play status.  The time to finish is listed on the bottom of the scorecard, and had they looked to see they were behind time, they could then have seen when the group in front was leaving the green that they had 14 minutes to finish the hole.  It is not the job of a tournament official to hand-hold, especially players of this level or caliber.

            The official statistics for the day:  there were 6 warnings issued and 3 potential penalties.  Two of the penalties were overturned and one was upheld.  The two that were overturned missed by only one minute at one or both of their checkpoints and had legitimate causes that slowed them for more than that minute.

A New Topic; Simon Dyson and the Ball Tap

            It is worth mentioning the Simon Dyson DQ at the BMW Masters.  Dyson was disqualified for returning a score lower than actually taken, because he failed to include a two-stroke penalty in his score that he did not know he had received.  A viewer call-in led European Tour official John Paramour to see that Dyson had breached Rule 16-1a by touching his line of putt when not permitted.  I say when not permitted because 16-1a has 7 internal exceptions when a player may touch his line of putt including: to remove loose impediments without pressing anything down, in the act of addressing the ball without pressing anything down, in measuring, in lifting or replacing the ball, in pressing down a ball-marker, in repairing old hole plugs or ball marks on the putting green or in removing movable obstructions.  What Dyson was tapping down with his ball, I’m not sure, but the action did not fall under any of those internal exceptions and he was in breach of Rule 16-1a for touching his line of putt.

Kolon Korean Open Breach

     Here is Geoff Shackleford's article regarding the Rules situation at the end of the Kolon Korean Open:  http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2013/10/20/tv-rules-rumpus-in-korea-leader-zapped-two-shots.html

    Based on reading the comments below the article, some from recognized officials and others from disgruntled fans, I want to explain as best as I can.

    Rule 13-4 governs what players can and cannot do when their ball lies in a hazard.  One Rule that most golfers remember is officially 13-4b: a player may not touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club.  If that was the real video footage, it seems fairly clear that he touched the ground in the hazard.  The penalty for doing so is two strokes in stroke play and loss of hole in match play.  The Rules Committee voted 5-3 to assess the penalty.  Why was there doubt?

     First, who has an even number of members on a Rules Committee?  If they'd voted 4-4 how would you break the tie?  Always have your Rules Committee be an odd number...
     Second, and more importantly, the reason there was some doubt lies in the Note to Rule 13-4: At any time, including at address or in the backward movement for the stroke, the player may touch, with a club or otherwise, any obstruction, any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course or any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing.

    What that means, is the simple brushing of the grass, with practice swing or otherwise, does not constitute a breach of the Rules if it doesn't improve your lie, stance or area of intended swing.  So the question is when did the player ground his club, thereby breaching Rule 13-4?  If the video footage in Shackelford's article is correct, there seems to be two moments where the club was grounded.  The Decisions book even gives us clarity as to what defines grounding the club in Decision 13-4/8:

Q.  If a player's ball lies in a water hazard, when is his club in tall grass considered to be touching the ground in the water hazard in breach of Rule 13-4?
A.  When the grass is compressed to the point where it will support the weight of the club (i.e., when the club is grounded).

In the last moment of the .gif video on Shackleford's page it appears the player did have his club resting on the grass to a point that would be considered grounded.

    And for the record, if you're taking practice swings in a hazard and brushing grass, you are walking a very fine line between Rules 13-2 and 13-4 so I'd be very careful... You can certainly do so without breaching the Rules, but it wouldn't take much for that to change.