Rory McIlroy's Driver

            On the 18^th hole at the WGC Cadillac Championship we saw a unique event that raised a few eyebrows, but was actually perfectly within the Rules.  To setup the situation, in recent years we’ve been introduced to adjustable drivers with heads that are screwed on. This has brought about a few questions regarding the Rules concerning driver adjustments.

            Today, Rory McIlroy was seen tightening the screw on his driver on the 18^th tee, and rightfully so a couple questions needed to be answered: what caused him to ask for the wrench and why did he use it?

            The reason these questions needed to be answered rest in Rule 4-2. Rule 4-2 states that the playing characteristics of a club must not be adjusted or changed during the stipulated round. If McIlroy was adjusting the settings of his driver, there would be a problem.

            However, Rule 4-3 also came into play. Rule 4-3 permits a player to repair a club (without delay) that has become damaged in the normal course of play. The term damage can apply to a few things: the club could be obviously damaged, like an iron shaft that is snapped in half as the result of striking a tree in the follow through of a stroke. Or it could be less obviously damaged, as we saw today.

            McIlroy was seen tapping the driver on the ground because he heard a rattle. He discovered that the head had in fact become loose during the round, and because of Rule 4-3 he was entitled to repair the club to its original state. In this case, that meant he could tighten the loose screw back to how it was when he started.

Rory McIlroy, the golfer and the craftsman. #QuickHits

https://t.co/JfjTxWUQHm

— PGA TOUR (@PGATOUR) March 5, 2016

            The end result was no penalty as he acted within the Rules. Had he tightened the screw to a different setting or otherwise changed the playing characteristics, McIlroy would’ve been disqualified for making a stroke with that club in breach of Rule 4-2. However, since he simply repaired the loose screw, Rule 4-3 provided that no penalty was the correct ruling.  Decision 4-3/2 specifies that the term "repair" means restoring the club as early as possible to its condition prior to becoming damaged. Tightening a screw loosened during the normal course of play falls well into that category. The video covers the situation quite well in the commentary.

First Look at an Anchoring Ruling on Tour

     A little more than two years ago we first heard about anchoring and the proposed new Rule. Then several months ago, when the USGA announced the 2016 changes to the Rules of Golf, anchoring again was in the spotlight as one of the four major changes to the 2016 edition.  For the first two weeks on the PGA Tour this year, however, we’ve been hearing more about the absence of anchoring and had yet to run into any actual issues with the Rule itself.
     Until Zac Blair used a fairway wood to play a chip from the fringe on the 71st hole of the Sony Open in Hawaii and television footage caught the handle of the club clearly catching his torso at the end of the stroke. PGA Tour officials questioned Blair, and no penalty was issued because he did not intentionally anchor the club for the stroke.
     This is a great opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions about the new Rule now that we’ve seen one of the potential gray areas arise in competition.

Misconception #1: The anchoring ban is specific to putters.
Truth #1:  Rule 14-1b applies to all clubs and all strokes.  The new Rule does not permit players to anchor with other clubs, however, it does not prohibit players from using long or belly putters without anchoring.

Misconception #2: If the grip touches the torso during any part of the stroke, the player is in breach of the Rule.
Truth #2: Rule 14-1b prohibits intentionally anchoring the club, either directly or through the use of an “anchor point.”  If the player’s club inadvertently comes into contact with the body, the player is not in breach of Rule 14-1b (see Decision 14-1b/6).

Misconception #3: As long as the club does not touch the body, the player is not anchoring.
Truth #3:  Rule 14-1b prohibits both direct anchoring and anchoring through the use of an “anchor point.” Note 2 to Rule 14-1b explains that, “An “anchor point” exists when the player intentionally holds a forearm in contact with any part of his body to establish a gripping hand as a stable point around which the other hand may swing the club.”  This means that a player may not anchor his forearm against his body with the intent of steadying the grip of the club and thereby creating a pseudo-pendulum. Even though the club itself is not anchored against the body, the use of the “anchor point” violates the new Rule and would come with a penalty.

Misconception #4: Because anchoring is a prohibited stroke, a player who does so is disqualified.
Truth #4: The penalty for a breach of Rule 14-1b is loss of hole in match play, or two strokes in stroke play for each anchored stroke.  To apply the penalty, count the anchored stroke itself and add an additional two penalty strokes.

At the Sony Open, the fact that Blair did not intentionally hold the grip against his torso meant that he was not in violation of the Rule, even though the grip clearly did come into contact with his body during the stroke. We will probably see more situations like this throughout the year; the key point to remember is that anchoring is an intent-based Rule. Without intent, there is no breach.

Live from Rules School 2016

            Well, as I found out delightfully this week, I know there are more than just my fellow NorCal brethren awaiting the first 2016 post. As has become tradition, I have a Live from Rules School summary for everyone after taking the first workshop and exam session of the year down at PGA Education HQ in Port St. Lucie.

            First:

1.     I hadn’t been back to the Education Center since graduating the PGM program in 2009, and I suppose there were some good vibes in the air, although quite a bit different from attending a workshop at a hotel ballroom site. If you haven’t attended a workshop there, it is worth it, the projection setup and acoustics work very well for a seminar.

2.     A gigantic thank you to the two instructors John Morrissett and Jim O’Mara. I signed up based on John’s reputation and he certainly did not disappoint. It’s quite clear his time away from the USGA has still been spent thinking about the Rules with a level of understanding the rest of us are only hoping to attain. But I also have to compliment Jim, whose presentation was not only on point, but also very solid from a performance standpoint (voice inflection, gestures, engaging the class, etc.). Not intending to discount previous PGA instructors I’ve had, but for those who look for instructors to see I would put Jim on that list for the future.

3.     Additionally, a big thank you to the Workshop maestro himself who served as coordinator, David Staebler. It’s always clear the thought going into the presentation and the little additions and Stabeler-isms that make difficult concepts easier to grasp (although I was disappointed that "announcey-marky"did not stick).

I spent the week fighting off a nasty cold (that still really isn’t completely gone), but was still able to come away with a few new points of emphasis that I think can help Rules aficionados of all levels and are worth sharing.  If you’re new to the blog and are hoping for exam insight…not gon’ happen.  Scratch that, I have one big tip… Don’t tell David I shared… KNOW THE DEFINITIONS.  Hope that helps. =) And for those asking how I did, in an attempt to answer the question once rather than a thousand times, there’s a hint in the article below.

Stroke Play Must Correct or DQs:

            I’m always looking for the ways the Rules are interconnected and the philosophy behind them.  While Tuft’s Principles are, of course, key, he hasn’t been involved in writing the Rules for some time so finding other connections still helps. John Morrissett proposed thinking of the must correct or DQ requirement of Rule 15-3 as an extension of Rule 3-2, (i.e, if you hole out a wrong ball, you haven’t really holed out, so if you don’t correct the mistake and play the next hole, you never really holed out).

            I think you can extend this thought and “principle” to all the stroke play must correct or DQ situations. 

·      Rule 11-4 & 5: If you play from outside the/a wrong teeing ground in stroke play when starting a hole, you must correct the mistake or be disqualified.  While this isn’t quite the same as extending the “failed to hole out” principle, it is easy to think about it as “you didn’t play the whole course and you didn’t play the same game.” Remember, if you start the hole by playing from outside the teeing ground, you don’t have a ball in play in stroke play. If you never have a ball in play, how can you say you’ve played the game as set forth in Rules 1 or 3? If you play from a wrong teeing ground at the start of a hole, not only do you not have a ball in play, but it’s possible that you may have left 100 yards of the hole behind (playing from a forward tee instead of a back tee).

·      Rule 15-3: As mentioned in the opening paragraph, if you hole out with a wrong ball, you didn’t play the game with a ball in play. How can you say you’ve holed out if you never finished the hole with a ball in play?

·      Rule 20-7c (Serious Breach): If you’ve committed a serious breach of playing from a wrong place, you haven’t played the whole course. The Rules require you to negotiate all the challenges a full course entails, and if you’ve gained a significant advantage by playing from a wrong place, you’ve obviously skipped one or more of those challenges by your breach of the applicable Rule.

·      Rule 29-3: If the wrong partner plays in threesome or foursome play, the side hasn’t abided by the given format – they didn’t play the same game. So the Rules are going to require that mistake to be corrected.  This may seem like an overly harsh penalty for a seemingly small breach, but the advantage that could be gained by having the wrong partner play a stroke is so significant, the Rules have to dissuade it with an equally significant penalty.

To keep the consistency factor going, all must correct or DQs have the same timeliness factor for correcting the error: prior to playing from the next teeing ground, or in the case of the final hole, prior to leaving the putting green (3-2 requires the correction prior to leaving the putting green, the rest require that the intent to correct be declared prior to leaving the putting green).

Parallel Rules?

            Have you ever thought of Rules 13 and 16 as parallel Rules? Rule 13 gives you the dos and don’ts for through the green and in a hazard (13-4), while Rule 16 gives you the dos and don’ts for the putting green.  13-2 even gives some permissions for the teeing ground and it also applies to your situation on a putting green, but they sort of work together in principle.

“Might Influence” Support

            Influencing the movement of a ball in motion is a big no, no in the Rules of Golf. Even just taking action with the intent to influence a moving ball is a penalty, regardless of whether the action actually affects the ball in motion (Rule 1-2).  And while the word intent does not appear in the other prohibitions (16-1b, 17-1 and -2, Notes to 22-1 and 22-2, 23-1 and 24-1) whether or not the action actually affects the ball in motion is never the consideration for whether the penalty applies.

            With Rules 16-1b and 17-2 we get specific Decisions that tell us when the penalty applies in these “might influence” situations. In both Decisions (16-1b/4 and 17-2/2) we get the (almost) exact same sentence, “The determination as to whether there is a reasonable possibility that B’s ball/the removal of the flagstick might have influenced the movement of A’s/the ball is made by reference to the situation at the time B lifted the ball/the flagstick was removed.”

            The principle is that in “might influence” situations the determination is made at the time the prohibited action occurs, not whether the action actually influences the ball in motion. But we only get those two Decisions.  This means we have to extend that principle to the other “might influence” situations. For Rule 17-1, it’s easy to apply 17-2/2 because we’re dealing with the removal of a flagstick. For the Notes in 22-1 and 22-2, I’m a believer that the Notes are really just referring back to the specific prohibition in Rule 16-1b (rather than acting as stand alone Rules violations) and so applying 16-1b/4 is a perfect match in my mind. But when we get to 23-1 and 24-1, we have to apply the principles from those Decisions to situations that are not specifically described.

            In order to do so, take the italicized phrase above and insert the applicable prohibited movement:

The determination as to whether there is a reasonable possibility that __________ (B’s ball / the removal of the flagstick, loose impediment or movable obstruction) might have influenced the movement of the ball in motion is made by reference to the situation at the time ________ (B lifted the ball / the flagstick, loose impediment or movable obstruction was removed).

One hundred cheers to everyone and good luck with your upcoming championship seasons!

Top Rules Situations from 2015

                As the year comes to a close, we start to see list after list of Top 10 happenings in every sport and golf is no exception.  The Rules of Golf should certainly not be overshadowed so here is a look back at the Top Rulings of 2015 at all levels.

5) Rule 19-5 – Ball in Motion Stopped or Deflected by Another Ball

Rule 19-5 just doesn’t seem to happen that often.  The ruling itself is quite simple when the ball in motion is deflected after a stroke from somewhere other than the putting green: play the ball from where it came to rest and Rule 18-5 has the other player replace the ball that was at rest.  What becomes difficult, is when you can’t quite tell where the ball at rest originally lay.

•   During the US Women’s Amateur Four-Ball Championship at Pacific Dunes I was fortunate enough to be a walking Referee in both Stroke Play Rounds and several Match Play rounds, including the Semi-Final Match between Hannah O’Sullivan (the 2015 Women’s Amateur Champion)/Robynn Ree and Madelein Herr/Brynn Walker.  In the second stroke play round, I had to apply Rules 18-5 and 19-5 on the 18^th hole.  Both players involved knew where the original ball lay and the ruling went quickly. 

• During the semi-final match, however, on the very first hole Walker’s approach from the fairway struck her partner’s ball at rest on the green.  From 120 yards away I had to rely on my forward observer to tell where Herr’s ball needed to be replaced.  I thought this was rare enough, but 3 holes later Walker managed to strike her partner’s ball again on her approach from about 50 yards short.  This time I was close enough to see the spot clearly and this ruling went quickly. See the FarbTalk article here: http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/05/womens-amateur-four-ball-wrap-up-great.html

• Just when I thought I’d seen enough colliding golf balls, during the third round of the US Senior Open at Del Paso on the 16^th hole, former Champion Olin Browne’s approach from more than 200 yards away struck P.H. Horgan’s ball at rest on the putting green.  The ruling took several minutes and the testimony of a spectator in the stands about 10 yards from the collision because we had trouble agreeing where Horgan’s ball needed to be replaced.  I had to think back to high school geometry to help explain why the eventual replacement made sense and in the end we trusted the eyes of someone who was very close to the action to make sure the ruling was correct. See the FarbTalk article here: http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/07/us-senior-open-championship-in-review.html

4) Angry Golfers

                Naturally when there is some confusion regarding the Rules of Golf, players tend to forget that it is, after all, just a game.  Tensions are especially high when there is more than a title on the line and potentially millions of dollars are at stake.  Two rulings in 2015 come to mind where golfers perhaps were a little angrier than they needed to be:

• During the WGC Match Play Championship at TPC Harding Park, Keegan Bradley and Miguel Angel Jimenez nearly came to blows over a complicated ruling that involved a temporary immovable obstruction and then a cart path. Read about it here: http://golfweek.com/news/2015/may/01/pga-tour-wgc-match-play-keegan-bradley-miguel-jime/

• During the Open Championship at St. Andrews, JB Holmes found his ball in a less than savory position on the 15^th hole of the first round.  JB was not please when his walking referee did not offer relief and even more upset when the rover, European Tour Official and Rules stalwart John Paramour, backed up the walking referee. The confusion came from the assertion that the player is “entitled” to a second opinion, but that isn’t the case.  Rule 34-2 states that the Referee’s decision is final.  A good walking referee will offer a second opinion when there is doubt, but the player is not entitled to it.  Holmes unfortunately appeared to let the unfavorable ruling affect his round and was not off to a great start in the Open. See the FarbTalk article here: http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/07/jb-holmes-second-opinion-at-open-and.html

• Who can forget McIlroy’s magnificent club throw at Trump Doral during the WGC-Cadillac Championship?!  See the FarbTalk article and video here: http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/03/rorys-throw-and-stacys-tree-wgc-and.html

3) Loose Impediments

                Loose impediments are natural objects that are not fixed or growing, solidly embedded or adhering to the ball.  Knowing the Definitions are everything when it comes to the Rules of Golf and a couple of times, understanding the difference between loose impediments and other defined terms (like burrowing animals) made a difference in some notable rulings:

• Graeme McDowell had some interference by a friendly (to some) insect during the final round of the Masters. In the process of trying to gently shoo (read “violently swat”) away a bee that was near his ball-marker on the putting green, McDowell accidentally moved the ball-marker in the process.  The referee on site initially issued McDowell a one-stroke penalty for moving his ball marker and had him replace the marker.  Interestingly enough, the ruling was properly corrected to no penalty, because the movement of the marker was directly attributable to the movement of a loose impediment.  Read the FarbTalk article here: http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/04/a-little-late-mcdowells-buzzing.html

• Bubba Watson suffered some confusion with the definitions during the PGA Championship when he tried to get relief from an ant mound, claiming that it was a burrowing animal hole.  An ant, however, is not a burrowing animal (even though they do “burrow” as Watson pointed out). The Definition of Burrowing Animal specifically excludes worms, insects and the like, however the definition of loose impediments includes worms, insects and the like AND the casts or heaps made by them.  The difference is that a burrowing animal hole would entitle the player to relief under Rule 25-1 which would require lifting and dropping the ball somewhere else, whereas Rule 23-1 simply permits the player, through the green, to move the loose impediment so long as the ball is not moved in the process. See the FarbTalk article here: http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/08/bubba-watson-and-ant-cast.html

2) To Concede or Not to Concede

During the Solheim Cup, there was an extremely controversial ruling in the match between Alison Lee-Brittany Lincicome and Suzann Pettersen-Charley Hull.  Lee, believing that she had heard on of the European players concede her 18-inch putt on the 17^th hole, lifted the ball.  Pettersen then vehemently denied that the putt had been conceded and Lee was assessed a one-stroke penalty for lifting her ball in play, costing the Americans the hole and eventually the match. Decision 2-4/3 could have permitted the Referee to allow Lee to replace the ball without penalty, but after interviewing the players the Referee did not believe there was enough evidence to suggest Lee had good reason to think the putt had been conceded.  Read more and see the video at Golfweek.com here: http://golfweek.com/news/2015/sep/20/solheim-cup-controversy-2015-golf-lee-putt-hull/

1) The “One Ball” Rule, Mickelson and the Presidents Cup

                By far the most controversial ruling of the year came at the Presidents Cup.  For whatever reason, the optional Condition of Competition known as the “One-Ball” Rule, which requires the player to play the same brand and model of golf ball throughout an entire round, came into play on multiple occasions throughout the year (see the FarbTalk summary here: http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/07/the-one-ball-rule-in-spotlight.html).

               What made the Mickelson situation more noticeable was the high-profile event and the fact that the ruling was botched (for lack of a better term). The confusion surrounded the fact that the penalty for a breach of this Condition is an adjustment to the state of the match.  Unfortunately, the officials on site at first declared that Mickelson was disqualified for the hole and had him pick up his ball.  Mickelson should have been permitted to complete the hole and then the status of the match would be adjusted based on the standing of the match at the end of that hole.  By the time the correct ruling was realized, it was too late to correct the error. Due to the complexities of the ruling, many misunderstood and thought Mickelson had “lost the hole twice” but the reality is that Mickelson-Day lost the hole, and then the match was adjusted by one hole for the penalty.  It was a major swing in the match. Read my article at Golfweek.com here: http://golfweek.com/news/2015/oct/09/mickelsons-miscue-regarding-one-ball-condition-ser/

                I hope everyone enjoyed this look down the 2015 memory lane and in the end learned at least one more thing about the Rules of Golf.  The Rules change on January 1, 2016 and in many ways became simpler and friendlier to the everyday and championship golfer.  For more on the Rules changes you can read my earlier article on FarbTalk (http://www.farbtalk.com/2015/10/the-2016-rules-of-golf-are-here.html) and visit USGA.org for more details and FAQ.

The 2016 Rules of Golf Are Here!

            The USGA and R & A released the 2016 Rules of Golf today and with the release came several significant changes that affect even the everyday golfer.  In addition to the major changes, one of which has been known for some time, there were also several smaller changes that will help Rules officials and gurus alike, addressing some issues that previously only had answers as USGA Staff decisions.

The Major Changes

Anchoring – Rule 14-1b

            There is no surprise here, we’ve known about the anchoring ban since 2013 and frankly it warrants very little discussion now.  The key for most golfers is to remember that this is not an equipment ban – the long putt and belly putters are still legal pieces of equipment.  However, you cannot anchor them to your body or by use of an “anchor point.”  What is key to the release of the new Rules is the introduction of several new Decisions that will help officials with various situations regarding anchoring.
           Seven new Decisions will help players and officials in dealing with issues regarding anchoring.  Most notably the new Decisions attempt to tackle the issue of "partial" anchoring, i.e, inadvertent touching, touching clothing or only part of the stroke being anchored.  In the case of inadvertent slips where the club or gripping hand happen to touch the body during the stroke or happen to touch clothing, there would be no penalty.  However, in the case of the partial anchor, anchoring is prohibited for the entire stroke (forward movement of the club made with the intent of striking the ball) so even if the anchoring stops toward the end of the stroke the player is in violation of Rule 14-1b.
          For more on Rule 14-1b please visit the USGA's informational website: Rule 14-1b Resources
 

Rule 18-2

            Since 2012 there has probably been no more controversial Rule than 18-2b and the Exception that was added in 2012 supposedly to alleviate unwanted penalties only added fuel to the fire.  With the 2016 Rules, gone is both the ill-advised exception and Rule 18-2b.  A play is no longer deemed to have caused the ball to move if the ball happens to move after address.  This is a move where we can see the Rules steering toward presuming the “honorable golfer” as they are intended rather than presuming a guilty golfer (keep this in mind for a later change). 

            This does not mean, however, that you can get away with causing the ball to move after address or that you are definitely off the hook once you’ve addressed the ball.  The new Decision 18-2/0.5 addresses what happens when a ball moves after a player has addressed it.  The new Decision is not in question and answer format as it is designed to give us guidance in how to determine whether the player has in fact caused his ball to move. Like other notable 0.5 Decisions, 18-2/0.5 gives us specific examples of when a player should be considered to have caused the ball to move and when the player should not be considered to have caused the ball to move.  Humorous to see (to me at least) is the example of a ball that has been addressed on a windy day falling under the "no penalty" category, showing that the governing bodies have not forgotten about the four-year adventure that was the 18-2b Exception.

            All in all, the change brings the Rule to its true intention: don’t cause the ball to move and if you do, take your stroke penalty and put it back.

Scoring and Rule 6-6d

            This may be one of the most interesting changes and may serve as a gateway to a more dramatic change in a couple years where the importance of the score card starts to be lessened.  The new Exception to Rule 6-6d provides that when a player signs for an incorrect score card due to a failure to include a penalty he did not know he had incurred, rather than a disqualification penalty, the player incurs the penalty he failed to include plus an additional two-stroke penalty for signing an incorrect score card.  This is an extremely severe penalty, which ultimately in elite competitions might as well be a DQ, but at least the player is still in the competition.

            What is unique about this change, is that the Rule is not specific to TV situations, or situations covered by the 2014 new Decision 18/4 where a player could not have reasonably discerned the penalty with the naked eye.  The failure to include a penalty could be the result of ignorance, something the Rules generally don’t look kindly upon (remember Rule 6-1 is that the player is responsible for knowing the Rules).

            This is a significant change that really affects amateur golf more than professional golf and is a sign of a friendlier Rules of Golf Committee.  An educated guess would lead me to believe the penalty for a wrong score card in any situation may eventually become a two-stroke penalty down the road (although they are quite clear that other instances where a p[layer signs for a lower score will still result in disqualification).

            Where this new Rule is quite harsh, however, is that the penalty can add up.  There is no penalty limitation. The new Exception to Rule 6-6d reads, "In such circumstances, the competitor incurs the penalty prescribed by the applicable Rule and an additional penalty of two strokes for each hole at which the competitor has committed a breach of Rule 6-6d."  For example, a player fails to include a penalty for grounding his club in a hazard because he didn’t know that was a Rule.  It actually occurred on three separate occasions.  In that case, the player incurs a two-stroke penalty on each of the 3 occasions (let’s say holes 4, 10 and 16).  He also incurs an additional two-stroke penalty for EACH of the 3 occasions of signing an incorrect card.  So in the end the player suffers TWELVE penalty strokes for his ignorance of the Rules.  This is probably where the Rules of Golf Committee can argue that they aren’t actually going soft on ignorance.

Rule 14-3 and the Distance-Measuring Devices

            Another significant change for the everyday golfer is Rule 14-3.  There are two parts to this change, both the penalty statement, and the application.

            The penalty statement is changing to a two-step process.  A player in breach of Rule 14-3 incurs a two-stroke penalty for the first violation.  This would have been nice for Juli Inkster and the club donut, Jeff Overton and the putting device and any number of players I can think of that were disqualified on the first hole of Open qualifying for accidently using a distance-measuring device.  Now if you’re silly enough to breach the Rule again during the round, then it becomes a disqualification.

            I think just as important as the penalty statement change is that the application of this Rule with regard to distance-measuring devices is changed significantly. Two very small changes to verbiage show that the Rules no longer (as of January 1^st of course) care if your distance-measuring device has an illegal slope function (or other illegal function) so long as you don’t actually use the illegal function.  First, the Note to Rule 14-3 that permits the Committee to make a local Rule allowing distance-measuring devices no states simply, "The Committee may make a Local Rule allowing players to use a distance-measuring device."  Formerly, the Note read, "...allowing players to use devices that measure or gauge distance only." Then, when you go to the Appendix to get the proper verbiage for instituting such a Local Rule in the part that used to prohibit what functions could also be performed by the DMD, it now reads, "If, during a stipulated round, a player uses a distance-measuring device to gauge or measure other conditions that might affect his play (e.g., elevation changes, wind speed, etc.), the player is in breach of Rule 14-3." So yes, your new laser range finder is legal, even if it has slope.  Just don’t use the slope feature during the round.

Changes for Gurus

Definition of Ball in Play

            The definition now clarifies the status of a ball that has been marked but not lifted, or a ball that has been marked, lifted and replaced is back in play whether or not the marker has been removed.  This draws out a ruling that has been in place for some time and just puts it right in the definition where it’s easy to spot.

Definition of Equipment

            The Definition of Equipment has been re-worked to be more understandable to the casual reader, drawing out the "exceptions" (things that are not equipment) into bullet points.  The new Note 2 clarifies the status of rakes when held or carried by a player's side and the new Note 3 takes care of the status of both shared golf carts AND now covers other shared or borrowed equipment.  A little bit of common sense came into play here so a player doesn't get penalized if he lends his towel to a fellow-competitor who then turns around and leaves the towel in a very bad spot and his hit by the original player's stroke.

Rule 25-2

            Along the theme of drawing rulings to the forefront, three new Notes have been added to Rule 25-2, all of which draw out rulings or information that were previously "hidden" somewhere else in the Rules or Decisions.  Note 1 clarifies when a ball is "embedded" which was previously only clarified by Decision 25-2/0.5.  Note 2 takes the internal Definition of "closely-mown area" out of the text of Rule 25-2 and separates it so that it is easier to find.  Note 3 is a new "Committee Note" taking the Local Rule in the Appendix and putting it right under the Rule itself.  The Local Rule permitting relief for an embedded ball through the green is so widely used that this seems to be a USGA/R&A compromise.  The R & A does not want to make through the green the Rule, but having the Local Rule in the Note brings it to the forefront.

Rule 3-3
            Rule 3-3 has been completely re-written to make the important Rule much more friendly for the casual reader and much clearer for Committee application.  So much clearer, in fact, that Decision 3-3/0.5, formerly the ultimate guide to which ball must count, has been withdrawn. The re-write accomplished several goals in making the Rule clearer:

1. By changing "must" to "should" in the initial procedure, it better separates this Rule from other procedural Rules where a penalty is incurred if the procedure is not followed.
2. The re-write uses bullets (a theme in the changes this year) to pull out the recommended procedure for players invoking Rule 3-3 to clarify what the player should do when he decides to use Rule 3-3. 
3. Two new Notes pull out the most confusing parts of the old Rule and better clarify what the original intention of that specific verbiage was, a) Note 2 clarifies that if the original is not one of the balls used, the first ball put into play has the status of the "original" ball, and b) many of us questioned what the meaning of "permit the procedure used" was and the new Note 1 clarifies that for us.
4. The re-write of Committee Determination of Score for Hole does a couple great things: a) by labeling it "Committee Determination" it further emphasizes that the player may not make a determination of which ball will count, only the Committee does that; b) it completely eliminates Decision 3-3/0.5 by making it clear what the Committee needs to do in various situations.

Rule 26-2
           The re-write of Rule 26-2 brings the Rule to its original intention.  Let's get you out of the water hazard.  What made the old Rule really was starting with the player operating under stroke and distance.  Then it required an "additional" penalty stroke for use and players and officials alike had trouble determining whether one or two penalty strokes were incurred.
           You can throw that all away now. The Rule is simplified to deal with the situation at hand alone.  If you play from within a water hazard into another water hazard, you can get the ball out for one penalty stroke.  They took the confusing stuff and put it into a note that clarifies if you first are silly enough to try the stroke again under stroke and distance, but after dropping realize your mistake and decide to get out of the hazard, you will incur two total penalty strokes.  Part B to Rule 26-2 has also been re-written for further clarity.

There are certainly a number of other notable changes (particularly in Decisions) and not nearly enough time to cover them all.  I do want to point out two new Decisions that Rules Officials should shout for joy at:

1)  33-8/32 - Finally, FINALLY we can handle random deer hoof damage (or other hoofed animals) appropriately.  This new Decisions permits the Committee to make a Local Rule that gives players permission to repair damage to the putting green that is clearly identifiable as having been caused by animal hoofs. Unfortunately for me, this goes into effect 2 1/12 months too late to help me with the dancing deer we had last week at the Stanford Intercollegiate.

2) 33-8/32.7 - How many times have you been told that dung is a loose impediment and may be moved provided the ball is not moved?  And how many times have you been disgusted that you are being forced to touch a big old cow-patty?  The new Decision provides that the Committee may make a Local Rule declaring dung prevalent on the course to be ground under repair, providing free relief.  It should be noted, that Rule 25-1 does not permit substitution so you're still going to have to retrieve the ball from the middle of the dung...

Phil Mickelson at the Presidents Cup

   Just a little while ago there was a confusing incident at the Presidents Cup. What happened is actually very simple, but not easy to understand because it involves a Condition of Competition that is only used at the highest levels of competition.  The every day golfer has likely never been subject to the "One Ball" Condition.
   The Rule/Condition in question can be found in Appendix I-C of the Rules of Golf.  What is making the understanding of this ruling more complicated is that the Condition involves an adjustment to the state of the match penalty for a breach.  But before I cover that, let me just state what the Rule actually is.
   The "One Ball" Condition requires each player to play the same model/brand/type golf ball throughout an entire round.  This means if you start the round with a Pro-V1 you may not switch to a Pro-V1x at any point.  Phil Mickelson was carrying a second model of Callaway golf ball and put it into play on the 7th hole believing the "One Ball" Condition was not in effect (it was not in effect for the Foursomes competition the previous day).
   The penalty in match play for a breach of this condition of competition is an adjustment to the state of the match penalty, NOT a loss of hole.  The verbiage is here: "At the conclusion of the hole at which the breach is discovered, the state of the match is adjusted by deducting one hole for each hole at which a breach occurred; maximum deduction per round - Two holes." This type of penalty also occurs in Rule 4 (carrying non-conforming clubs, having too many clubs, etc) or in Rule 6-4 (having more than one caddie at a time).
   What this means is that when a breach of this condition is discovered, the player should complete the play of the hole and determine the status of the match, not including the penalty.  At that point, you deduct holes, or "ups" (or add "downs") to the status of the match.  In the Mickelson situation, the status of the match after completing the 7th hole was International 1 Up (USA 1 Down), therefore the status of the match was then adjusted to make the International Team 2 up (or Mickelson/Johnson 2 Down).
  Some of the interesting kinks to the ruling:
  Why did the whole side incur the penalty? - The whole side incurs the penalty because of Rule 30-3d.  Because the format of play is Four-Ball match Play, according to Rule 30-3d when either member of the side breaches a local Rule or Condition of competition for which the penalty is an adjustment to the state of the match, the entire side incurs the penalty.  The reason for this is simple: in four-ball there is no other way to apply an adjustment to the state of the match penalty because the match applies to both players.  This also applies with breaches of Rule 4 (too many clubs, carrying non-conforming clubs, etc) or 6-4 (having more than one caddie).
   Where the Presidents Cup went wrong, was having Phil Mickelson pick up and not continue playing the hole.  In many situations in four-ball, one partner might end up simply disqualified for the hole and the other partner must try to play out the hole on his own.  The referee made the mistake of thinking the breach was a disqualification for the hole situation (and was incorrectly confirmed over the radio) and had Mickelson pick up his ball when in fact he should have continued the hole.  In fact, he could have continued the hole with the incorrect ball if he so desired because the "One Ball" Condition only requires the player to start playing the correct ball by the next teeing ground after the breach is discovered.
   I understand this appears to be a complicated ruling, but really it was made much more difficult by the Committee error in having Mickelson pick up on the hole.  If nothing else, I hope everyone who reads this article takes away a better understanding of adjustment to the state of the match penalties. Mickelson/Johnson did not suffer a double loss of hole penalty, only a one hole adjustment that happened to occur after completing a hole they had just lost. Check out Decision 4-4a/9 for a clarification of how the adjustment to the state of the match penalty works.
    Also check out my post from earlier in the year The "One Ball Rule" in the Spotlight.