Non-Hypothetical

[jcgolfpro]

A player misses a green and hits a decent chip that lips out. Upset at his play of the hole, he putts out without removing his headcover. What is the penalty?

[Fourputt]

Looks like a DQ to me. He used an artificial device or unusual equipment that is not allowed under the rules. Even though he didn't do it to gain an advantage, I feel that, in equity, the penalty must be applied.

[JungleJ]

I agree with Fourputt - external attachments to clubs are not permitted

[jcgolfpro]

Yep, NJ said DQ. I always hate calling them because even though we have a hotline, they act as though we are bothering them. When the question was asked, the response was a terse "Disqualification, Rule 4-1."

The biggest problem I have with our Rule book is the fact that many times you have to correlate 3 or more locations to get the actual ruling. In this case, you would have had to read the Appendix on Clubs and then correlate that back to Rule 4 for the non-conforming club. The funniest thing is that this situation, while common in both High School AND College golf (have run tournaments for both and it has happened in both) there is no decision on it which would make it clear to all who don't want to study the book.

I quoted the DQ penalty to the player's coach and he disagreed so he had my First Assistant call NJ about it.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by jcgolfpro

Yep, NJ said DQ. I always hate calling them because even though we have a hotline, they act as though we are bothering them. When the question was asked, the response was a terse "Disqualification, Rule 4-1."

The biggest problem I have with our Rule book is the fact that many times you have to correlate 3 or more locations to get the actual ruling. In this case, you would have had to read the Appendix on Clubs and then correlate that back to Rule 4 for the non-conforming club. The funniest thing is that this situation, while common in both High School AND College golf (have run tournaments for both and it has happened in both) there is no decision on it which would make it clear to all who don't want to study the book.

I quoted the DQ penalty to the player's coach and he disagreed so he had my First Assistant call NJ about it.

Who is "NJ?"

I am curious. Rule 4-1 says the players club shall conform to the appendix. If we assume it did, then the ruliing is based on the fact that the cover was on the club. Does that make it non conforming? If so, would not the club be non conformin when it is in the bag not being used but with the cover on? The rule does not say the club must be conforming "when used, it just says it must be conforming. A club is not non conforming just because it has a cover on it, otherwise it would be non conforming all the time.

I'm not disagreeing with what NJ told you, but something is missing.

Fourputt seems closer with the artificial device argument.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Looks like a DQ to me. He used an artificial device or unusual equipment that is not allowed under the rules. Even though he didn't do it to gain an advantage, I feel that, in equity, the penalty must be applied.

If the rules cover a given situation, which you seem to say, there is no need for equity. A ruling is made in equity only when there is no applicable rule.

Assuming the player breached a rule, would the fact that he did not do it to gain an advantage excuse the breach?

[jcgolfpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Who is "NJ?"

The USGA...Far Hills, NJ

[Bill H.]

R.O.G. - 4.2

a. PLAYING CHARACTERISTICS CHANGED
During a stipulated round, the playing characteristics of a club must not be purposely changed by adjustment or by any other means.

b. FOREIGN MATERIAL
Foreign material must not be applied to the club face for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 4-1 or 4-2:

DISQUALIFICATION
---------------------
I believe the head cover could be cited equally in part a or b.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

If the rules cover a given situation, which you seem to say, there is no need for equity. A ruling is made in equity only when there is no applicable rule.

Assuming the player breached a rule, would the fact that he did not do it to gain an advantage excuse the breach?

The term equity is used here because Rule 14-3 does not specifically mention making a stroke with the head cover on, but it does discuss the use of artificial devices, and every head cover I've ever seen is artificial. Thus although not specified, it still fits the category and must be ruled as are those items that are listed in the decisions on this rule as a proscribed item. Use of any of those banned items would be grounds for disqualification, thus in equity so must this.

And yes, you do pick the nits deeper than is necessary. While precision is necessary, excessive minutia is not, even for discussing the Rules of Golf.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The term equity is used here because Rule 14-3 does not specifically mention making a stroke with the head cover on, but it does discuss the use of artificial devices, and every head cover I've ever seen is artificial. Thus although not specified, it still fits the category and must be ruled as are those items that are listed in the decisions on this rule as a proscribed item. Use of any of those banned items would be grounds for disqualification, thus in equity so must this.

And yes, you do pick the nits deeper than is necessary. While precision is necessary, excessive minutia is not, even for discussing the Rules of Golf.

Well, sorry, but your post clarifies your misunderstand the purpose of rule 1-4, and makes it clear that you resist such understanding. Just so you are clear on it, and as my last comment on the topic, you said the "Use of any of those banned items would be grounds for disqualification," This means that there is a that applies to the case. Why is it necessary to invoke equity when the applicable rule applies to the situation? That is what I am saying, but you are stubbornly standing by your erroneous misunderstanding of "in equity." Nit picking....you bet. The rules are an excercise in nitpicking. If you do not realize that, you will never make it. How else can one say "you are wrong?"


If a rule applies, equity does not. Your analysis is inherently contradictory.


I am sorry if you are offended by my frank approach. I understand the rules and like discussing that knowledge with others. It is not intended as anything more than instructive. It it is taked as such, it is not intended, but I cannot change.

Nit picking is not criticism. I understand the rules of golf and especially the principles behind them and clearly you do not. This is not a character criticism....I did not have this understanding at birth, but I understood that others who had studied and been exposed to the rule did, and I deferred to them until I had the understanding necessary to challenge them. But I did not criticize others as unnecessarily picking nits when they corrected me. I accepted the guidance and tried to understand what they said. Characterizing what they said as nitpicking would have been counterproductive.


But, I am thru. I have been twice attacked by board management as exceeding guideline, and this resistance to my posts added, I am clearly not welcome here and have no desire to add to my own discomfort or yours.


Best of luck in your quest for an understanding of the rules of golf.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Bill H.

R.O.G. - 4.2

a. PLAYING CHARACTERISTICS CHANGED
During a stipulated round, the playing characteristics of a club must not be purposely changed by adjustment or by any other means.

b. FOREIGN MATERIAL
Foreign material must not be applied to the club face for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 4-1 or 4-2:

DISQUALIFICATION
---------------------
I believe the head cover could be cited equally in part a or b.

I disagree with citing the headcover in both cases.


In a. PLAYING CHARACTERISTICS CHANGED a headcover is not changing the club it is simply protecting it. And in b. FOREIGN MATERIAL a headcover, though technically a foreign material, is not "applied" to the club for any purpose involving ball movement.

Again, like so many rules, the question of intent is brought into play. No one could seriously believe that stroking a ball with a club which has a headcover on it could in any way provide some kind of advantage. And in the case of a ball which has lipped out of the cup, the assumption is that the ball is so close to the cup that tapping it in with a headcovered putter would be suficient to hole out and that being the case, the question of "advantage" or unduly influencing ball movement is largely moot if not flat-out ridiculous.

As the saying goes: "The rules are the rules", but in this case, disqualification seems awfully draconian when the intent is to simply brush the ball into the cup and move on.


-JP

[Leaguegolf]

Sorry JPsuff, but when you make a stroke with a headcover on your putter you have changed the playing characteristics of that putter. The same goes for any club.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Sorry JPsuff, but when you make a stroke with a headcover on your putter you have changed the playing characteristics of that putter. The same goes for any club.

I'm aware of that.

But it still doesn't address intent, which is why I believe that many of the Rules of Golf are just plain silly.

Yes, making a stroke with a headcover on the club will alter the shot, but certainly to no one's advantage which is what the rule implies. What you're saying is that by tapping in a putt with the headcover on the putter alters the characteristics of the putter but to whose advantage? The only thing anyone could gain from such an act would be "Moron of the Month" if he missed the tap in. But it certainly wouldn't improve his chances of making the putt.

And the Rules are often capricious. Take something like the rule against building a stance. Craig Stadler was penalized for putting a towel on the grass to kneel on and was accused of building a stance. Does anyone really believe that? Or was it simply that he wanted to keep his pants clean? And why then is it allowed that a person can remove his shoes and socks in order to play from a water lie? Aren't they simply trying to keep their shoes dry? Clean pants/dry shoes, what's the difference? And in point of fact, I'll bet that more than a few experts in biomechanics could make the case that standing on slippery rocks in the water in one's bare feet actually provides more purchase than one could hope to achive while wearing golf spikes. An unfair advantage perhaps? Hmmm, sounds like a new rule needs to be written. Or how about digging one's feet into the sand while preparing to play a bunker shot? Isn't that "building a stance"?

So such trivialities are punished in some instances but completely ignored in others. In none of those examples do I see anyone trying to gain some sort of unfair advantage. I simply see the judicious application of common sense or at worst, (in the case of the sheathed putter), just plain silliness.


But the rules are the rules and a thousand plagues to those who question them.


Remember: It's a game, OK?



-JP

[JungleJ]

The problem with bringing "intent" into the equation is that application of the Rules would become incredibly arbitrary. "Common sense" is decidedly uncommon in any case.

"I didn't mean to do it" would become a defence for all sorts of infractions. Can you imagine the size of the Decisions book if every situation had two questions - "Player A did such and such, what is the penalty?", and "Player A did such and such, but said he didn't intend to do it, what is the penalty?"

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Bill H.

R.O.G. - 4.2

a. PLAYING CHARACTERISTICS CHANGED
During a stipulated round, the playing characteristics of a club must not be purposely changed by adjustment or by any other means.

b. FOREIGN MATERIAL
Foreign material must not be applied to the club face for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 4-1 or 4-2:

DISQUALIFICATION
---------------------
I believe the head cover could be cited equally in part a or b.

Like JP, I have to disagree. I know. I know. The rules are the rules and whether you like it or agree with it, it doesn't change the ruling. I'm not suggesting that someone was wrong in their answer or anything like that. However, my reason for disagreement is thus:

part a: The club's characeristics are unchanged. If the headcover is removed, you will see the club remains as it was before and no physical changes have been made to the club. But you put something on the clubface, so part b still applies, right?

part b: Foreign material must not be applied to the club face for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball. Do you really think the PURPOSE of the headcover being on was to influence the movement of the ball? I would have to argue that it was not. Therefore, neither part a nor part b apply to this situation, in my opinion.

Therefore, I don't see rule 4-2 part a or part b being applicable in this case. That being said...I'll NEVER putt with my putter cover on!

[jcgolfpro]

I would take it a step farther in that putting with your headcover on (this was a Cameron) makes it much more difficult to determine the speed and direction the ball will go. The headcover will absorb much of the energy of the stroke and if the padding is bunched at all you can't be sure of the initial direction. Either way, it's DQ and I definitely wouldn't do it - ESPECIALLY NOT in a tournament. If any of my players did something like that, they would have the rest of the season to think about it...

[Bigvivec]

They should be DQed and cited for being lazy...

[jcgolfpro]

Rule 34-1. Any action by a player resulting from said player's laziness must result in immediate disqualification.

[jcgolfpro]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Well, sorry, but your post clarifies your misunderstand the purpose of rule 1-4, and makes it clear that you resist such understanding. Just so you are clear on it, and as my last comment on the topic, you said the "Use of any of those banned items would be grounds for disqualification," This means that there is a that applies to the case. Why is it necessary to invoke equity when the applicable rule applies to the situation? That is what I am saying, but you are stubbornly standing by your erroneous misunderstanding of "in equity." Nit picking....you bet. The rules are an excercise in nitpicking. If you do not realize that, you will never make it. How else can one say "you are wrong?"


If a rule applies, equity does not. Your analysis is inherently contradictory.


I am sorry if you are offended by my frank approach. I understand the rules and like discussing that knowledge with others. It is not intended as anything more than instructive. It it is taked as such, it is not intended, but I cannot change.

Nit picking is not criticism. I understand the rules of golf and especially the principles behind them and clearly you do not. This is not a character criticism....I did not have this understanding at birth, but I understood that others who had studied and been exposed to the rule did, and I deferred to them until I had the understanding necessary to challenge them. But I did not criticize others as unnecessarily picking nits when they corrected me. I accepted the guidance and tried to understand what they said. Characterizing what they said as nitpicking would have been counterproductive.


But, I am thru. I have been twice attacked by board management as exceeding guideline, and this resistance to my posts added, I am clearly not welcome here and have no desire to add to my own discomfort or yours.


Best of luck in your quest for an understanding of the rules of golf.

The rules are not an exercise in nit-picking. They ARE an exercise in paying attention to details. The Rules are fairly simple as long as the facts of any situation are known and a rule covers the situation specifically. Otherwise, it can be a pain to interpret the rules without a Decisions book.

After attending over dozens of rules seminars/workshops, including several by Tom Meeks, I can honestly say that most of the educators are not stuffy, nit-picking, know-it-alls, instead they truly care about increasing the knowledge and understanding of this very difficult Rules book to decipher. They do not do it with a holier-than-thou attitude, nor do they use a "I'm right, you're wrong" stance. There are many instances in golf where it is not black and white and one rule may or may not cover the situation. According to Mr. Meeks, there are two kinds of Rules Officials...those who have made incorrect rulings and those that will make an incorrect ruling.

Atticus, your knowledge of the rules seems to be excellent but the delivery of the message is what needs some work. Remember, this is not the Golf Channel board where everyone is trying to one-up everyone else on their rules knowledge. I hope you reconsider but that is up to you.

[Fileygolfer]

I was once talking to John Parimore (Senior European Tour Referee) and he said the hardest thing about making a decision is proving that it is the correct one.
On being called to an incident it takes a minute to make the Ruling but several more to confirm that it is the correct one.