Swing Aids

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

.


So that brings the whole argument back to square one: "How would one prove that someone was using their shirt as a "swing aid"?"

Or are we going to use the tired old standby: "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it"? Which, by the way, isn't an answer either because what one person percieves as being a violation, another might see as someone simply adjusting an uncomfortable shirt. And since the only way to "prove" that a person's shirt was being used as a "swing aid", would be to somehow crawl into that person's skin and actually feel the way the shirt feels, so this "clarification" by the USGA is pointless and un-enforceable which is what I've been saying all along.

Personally, I don't see it as a swing aid as much as I see it as a reminder. The term "swing aid" implies that something can be used to improve one's swing which in turn implies that some advantage can be gained by doing so.
But if a person has a sound swing and part of that soundness is due to keeping their left arm tucked close to their body, then using a bit of cloth from the shirt they're wearing to "remind" themselves to keep their arm tucked in is not gaining an advantage but simply reinforcing an already learned technique.

Does that "aid" the golfer?

Yes, in the literal sense of the word. But the term "swing aid", when framed against the general intent of the Rules of Golf which is to see that the game is played fairly, equitably and with no one eperson gaining an advantage over another, I don't see how this applies.

If this is regarded as a "swing aid" then how would one regard a mental cue such as counting out a rhythm, or perhaps reciting a word which encourages a particular tempo or "reminds" a golfer to swing in a certain way? Wouldn't such a thing be just as much a "swing aid" as a piece of cloth worn by the golfer?

And once again, how would that be proven?

One of the first things people learn in law school is that there is a vast difference between what is supected and what can be proven.

So when I see someone fiddling with their clothes or taking a moment to stretch prior to each time they begin to address their ball, do I assume that are they preparing to use a swing aid? Or do I assume that they're just trying to get comfortable? And how would I arrive at either conclusion?



-JP

You seem to have two difficulties in understanding this issue.

1, A player is expected to conform to the rules in good faith and not violate them knowingly. Anyone who says "How would one prove that someone was using their shirt as a "swing aid"? makes me nervous. We should not have to PROVE someone breached the rules. If someone in advertantly breaches a rule and then is asked if he did so, he is expected to answer honestly and admit what he did. HE knows what his intention was. If he is trying to conceal his intention he has no business playing golf and the rules provide no remedy for the rest of us. We play with honorable people or we do not and hope we can find the bad ones quickly so we can avoid them.

2. Many things can be said to aid a player's swing. You seem to want to shuffle them all into the same box and defend your position that they should be considered in violation of rule 14-3 and thereby show the absurdity or illogicalness of the rule. BZZZZ wrong. You again miss the point.

Rule 14-3 does not prohibit aids to the swing, it prohibits artificial devices and unusual equipment used to aid the swing. A rhythm in your head is not an artificial device. The issue is not whether something can aid the player it is whether that something is artificial.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

First of all, I disagree that clothing is "equipment". A uniform or some other type of required mode of dress might be considered equipment, but normal street clothing such as a shirt (which can be worn just as easily to dinner as to a golf course) isn't what I would consider as equipment.-JP

What you think the rules ought to say is not relevant. People post here looking for answers as to what the rules DO say.

You can disagree till you are blue in the face but the rules say clothing is equipment.

Further, if your feeling about whether a breach occurs depend on whether we can PROVE a breach occurs is contrary to the spirit of hte game and its history and I wish you luck in finding someone to play with you. And I would also ask how you propose to prove such things and what to do when you cannot.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fileygolfer

I agree, I believe that the RofG are the little book that all golfers all over the world can carry in their golf bag, and the game of golf can be played correctly with it......

BUT!

So many people have questioned the USGA and the R&A over these rules that several volumns of "Decisions" have had to be printed. I play by the Rules listed in the little book and have been fine with it for nearly 40years. During this time I have called penalty shots which later I have found were not in fact needed and not taken relief when I could have, all because I took any decision from the RofG and not "The Decisions".
It is fine sitting down and having a look through pages and pages of "Decisions" but when you are on the course and need a ruling, it has to be there and then.

How about an addition for the next rule changes.
A Player has five minutes to find and take any Free Relief that they may think they are entitled too. If the player can not prove (beyond reasonable doubt) entitlement to Free Relief to his Marker/Opponent within the five minutes he must play the ball as it lies.

The decisions don't normally come from questions raised by golfers (such as the discussions we have here), they usually come from situations that arise in competition, where a rules official must make a decision because of an awkward condition. Whether the decision he makes on the spot is right or wrong, if it is sufficiently unclear by the rule as written in the book, then a decision may be written to be incorporated in the next issue of the Decisions book. Sometimes several decisions about the same issue may inspire the rewording of an entire rule to eliminate the need for that group of decisions.

Originally Posted by JPsuff

There were thirteen original rules for this game which were set forth in a mere 353 words. Now there are over six-hundred pages of modifications to those thirteen original rules. So it stands to reason, (as Fileygolfer pointed out) that many rules were questioned and then modified because of those questions. (I guess I must have had some golfing ancestors, huh?)

There are still only 28 Rules. And since you mention them, I'm sure you've read those original 13, and you have to admit that they are woefully inadequate for today's game. They weren't necessarily changed on anyone's "suggestions", but for real life on course issues that the rules didn't have an answer for at the time.

Most of the change suggestions here aren't of that nature. They are strictly subjective complaints about rules that one or two individuals just happen to dislike, for whatever reason. The rulebook just doesn't get changed for such whimsical reasons.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

...Most of the change suggestions here aren't of that nature. They are strictly subjective complaints about rules that one or two individuals just happen to dislike, for whatever reason. The rulebook just doesn't get changed for such whimsical reasons.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that the rules don't get abused.

Take the now famous "Tiger Rule" regarding loose impediments. You don't think that that was an abuse of a rule?

Yeah, yeah, I know he was technically correct. But I'm certainly not the only person on the planet who thinks that there's something wrong with the idea of enlisting the services of six spectators to help remove this "impediment". I believe I said that I thought he handled that situation more like a Philadelphia lawyer than a golfer acting in the "spirit of the game".

THAT is a rule that could easily be changed to read that a player may remove a loose impediment from his or her line of play provided that ONLY THAT PLAYER MOVE IT and that they may not enlist the services of any outside agency to assist in moving the impediment.


There. That was easy, right? And my version maintains the "spirit of the game" more than the current version does and it doesn't leave room for someone else's interpretation either.

We could call it the "If you can't move it yourself, then it don't get moved" amendment to Rule 23.





And by the way, why can you guys engage in an intellectual debate about something without resorting to the inelastic position of "a rule is a rule"? When I bring up stuff like this you react as if it's some sort of blasphemy; as if I just said that the sun rises in the west.

I'm just arguing is all; a simple little excercise in "What ifs?"


I say I don't like a golf rule and you'd think I pee'd in your Cheerios, for cryin' out loud. You know, every now and then you have to question authority. It's the only way to maintain a balanced view of things.



-JP

[Wazmankg]

Well, while I don't get too involved in these threads, I certainly appreciate everyones participation. I find them very educational and entertaining....not necessarily in that order.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that the rules don't get abused.

Take the now famous "Tiger Rule" regarding loose impediments. You don't think that that was an abuse of a rule?

Yeah, yeah, I know he was technically correct. But I'm certainly not the only person on the planet who thinks that there's something wrong with the idea of enlisting the services of six spectators to help remove this "impediment". I believe I said that I thought he handled that situation more like a Philadelphia lawyer than a golfer acting in the "spirit of the game".

THAT is a rule that could easily be changed to read that a player may remove a loose impediment from his or her line of play provided that ONLY THAT PLAYER MOVE IT and that they may not enlist the services of any outside agency to assist in moving the impediment.


There. That was easy, right? And my version maintains the "spirit of the game" more than the current version does and it doesn't leave room for someone else's interpretation either.

We could call it the "If you can't move it yourself, then it don't get moved" amendment to Rule 23.





And by the way, why can you guys engage in an intellectual debate about something without resorting to the inelastic position of "a rule is a rule"? When I bring up stuff like this you react as if it's some sort of blasphemy; as if I just said that the sun rises in the west.

I'm just arguing is all; a simple little excercise in "What ifs?"


I say I don't like a golf rule and you'd think I pee'd in your Cheerios, for cryin' out loud. You know, every now and then you have to question authority. It's the only way to maintain a balanced view of things.



-JP

There were twelve spectators who moved the tiger stone. Just arguing, that's all. Maintaining a balanced view of things.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that the rules don't get abused.

Take the now famous "Tiger Rule" regarding loose impediments. You don't think that that was an abuse of a rule?

Yeah, yeah, I know he was technically correct. But I'm certainly not the only person on the planet who thinks that there's something wrong with the idea of enlisting the services of six spectators to help remove this "impediment". I believe I said that I thought he handled that situation more like a Philadelphia lawyer than a golfer acting in the "spirit of the game".

THAT is a rule that could easily be changed to read that a player may remove a loose impediment from his or her line of play provided that ONLY THAT PLAYER MOVE IT and that they may not enlist the services of any outside agency to assist in moving the impediment.


There. That was easy, right? And my version maintains the "spirit of the game" more than the current version does and it doesn't leave room for someone else's interpretation either.

We could call it the "If you can't move it yourself, then it don't get moved" amendment to Rule 23.





And by the way, why can you guys engage in an intellectual debate about something without resorting to the inelastic position of "a rule is a rule"? When I bring up stuff like this you react as if it's some sort of blasphemy; as if I just said that the sun rises in the west.

I'm just arguing is all; a simple little excercise in "What ifs?"


I say I don't like a golf rule and you'd think I pee'd in your Cheerios, for cryin' out loud. You know, every now and then you have to question authority. It's the only way to maintain a balanced view of things.



-JP

The point is that the rule you so often bring up as your case study HAS been reviewed by the USGA and the R&A, and neither saw anything that violated either the spirit or the letter of the rules. It's time for those who have such a problem with it to just give it up. Most of those who agree with you are simply Tiger bashers anyway (not saying that you are or you aren't), they couldn't care less what the rule is, only that it helped Woods, and that is what they really have a problem with.

For most of the issues I see raised here, the pertinent rule has a very logical or reasonable basis for being as it is, but those who protest them up either can't see the logic, or won't admit to seeing it. I have studied the rules, and I continue to do so. I find them quite fascinating. I'm enrolled in the USGA 4 day seminar here in Denver in March to further enhance my understanding of them.

Unlike you, I do see the rules as just being the rules. After all that is all they are... just the rules for a game. No more or less arbitrary or contrived than the rules for any other game. What would happen to the game of chess if someone started a movement questioning logic of the "L" shaped move for the knight? To me that sounds ludicrous, but to some it might seem sensible because it would make the game a bit easier to understand for ordinary players. I see no difference between that and some of the (to me) peculiar suggestions for golf rules put forth on this and other golf discussion boards.

[JPsuff]

.



All I can say is that if the Rules of Golf were a simple as the Rules of Chess, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

Chess is one of the simplest games ever invented from a rules point of view. There are six pieces, each of which move in six specific ways and there are only four variations of these moves which are: A Pawn's capture move, promotion, en passant and castleing. The only other rule is the rule of checkmate and that's basically it. Chess is very straighforward and unambiguous. One could write the entire rules of chess on the back of a matchbook.

Golf, on the other hand, is extremely ambiguous and the fact that thirteen original rules have evolved into over six-hundred pages of "Decisions" proves that and it is that ambiguity which causes me to question the logic of the Rules of golf.

Take something as simple as "stakes". If my ball comes to rest near a hazard stake and that hazard stake lies in my line of play or in my swingpath, I can simply remove it, play my shot and replace the stake. But if I land near an Out of Bounds stake and it too lies in my swingpath, I cannot move it without penalty.

Now what kind of sense does that make? A stake is a stake, no?

Here's a good one: If my ball comes to rest in a bunker and afterwards a pine cone falls from an overhanging tree and lands behind my ball, I cannot remove the pinecone without penalty. But if it fell from the tree, landed outside the bunker and was then blown into the bunker by the discharge of a groundskeepers lawn mower and came to rest behind my ball, I can then remove it without penalty. Of course if my ball simply came to rest, say, in the rough and a pinecone fell from the same tree and landed behind my ball, I can simply pick it up and toss it aside and play on and not even think twice about it.


Or here's an actual title of a rule: "Ball in Drainpipe Under Course; Entrance to Drainpipe Is Out of Bounds" This goes on to describe how a ball entered a drainpipe out of bounds but continued into the drainpipe and came to rest at a point directly under a portion of the course which was "through the green".


Come on man! Who thinks of this stuff?

And how was the location of the ball in the drainpipe determined anyway? Ground penetrating radar? A good guess? Did someone actually crawl inside the drainpipe with a mining helmet and a tape measure?

And this kind of stuff goes on for page after page, chapter after chapter.

I don't know how you could make a statement like: " Isee the rules as just being the rules. After all that is all they are... just the rules for a game. No more or less arbitrary or contrived than the rules for any other game."

You really believe that the rules of golf which blossomed from 13 simple rules to over six-hundred pages of stuff like drainpipes and pinecones is "No more or less arbitrary or contrived than the rules of any other game."? As far as I know, the rules of chess have had one or two basic revisions in, what, a thousand years? The rules for Monopoly are the same today as they were when the game was invented. It seems to me that golf is the only game that seems to get yearly updates and changes and decisions and exceptions and has committees and let's not forget the "local rules". Golf has nothing but rules and those are constantly being updated or modified in some way, shape or form.
Heck, they even have spaces within their chapters which are RESERVED! Resrved for what? More rules? More changes? More exceptions? And none of this is contrived or arbitrary? This is like any other game?

I dunno...

I think the way a knight moves on a chessboard would be a heckuva lot easier to both explain and justify than the Rules of Golf would ever hope to be.



-JP

[Fileygolfer]

The RofG have a long way to go before they become as difficult to understand as "The Off-side Rule" in Soccer.

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

And my version maintains the "spirit of the game" more than the current version/



-JP

The "current version" has been the rule for 250 years. I think that is more the spirit of the game,

[Bigvivec]

Originally Posted by coralpro

It would only be a violation if you intended to pull your shirt in such a way that you wanted to use it as a swing aid. I have the same problem as you when it is hot and I wear a loose short sleeve with the longer sleeves. Of course our reasons may differ as my shirt gets hung on the big biceps and large triceps. I guess a shirt would hang on lymphatic tissue as well.

That's the thing Coral...and JP and Filey alluded to it as well...setting up with my shirt cleared and holding the material out of the way by pinning it under my arm isn't a swing aid in my mind...I am just getting comfortable and making sure I have freedom of movement...it never crossed my mind until this discussion...now the question "Does it aid my swing?"...big resounding "yes" there, if I am uncomfortable I will probably hit a poor shot...now does doing this unknowingly assist in setting up better than if I had a perfectly fitted shirt on a dry day that needed no adjusting? I don't think that is the point...but like JP said as well there are alot of grey areas here...wearing a ball cap and using it to align 90 degrees to the ball by lowering the brim so as to create a visual in the line of sight would be comparable...so would wearing sunglasses that enhance grass contour detail, especially on greens and sighting layup landing areas...aids to the game to be sure, but are they illegal swing aids?

BTW Coral...my "guns" are sizeable ad have GOT to be in the same ballpark as a guy who works in an aquarium shop and while they look good at the beach (or in the stands at a NASCAR race as the case may be ) they do little for me on the course and I often think what it would be like to be built like Luke Donald and have wispy rubber for arms and a swing unencumbered by bulk...

[Bigvivec]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

You have asked more than two questions.

You should get familiar with the decisions and how to find stuff. Almost all of your quesions are answered on point in two decisions. See D.4-4a/8; 14-3/10.

Your question about something under your arm is answered by a close reading of rule 14-3a. What do you think the answer is?

Nice...rules guy cops an attitude!

My point, and JP's and Filey's was that should you adjust a shirt to be comfortable and that comfort includes pinning the material between the body and the arm so as to have full freedom of movement, would that be the same as an obvious breach like sticking a glove under the arm? And you are right...we know the answer as we see it on the tube every week as a golfer steps into his stance, he pulls up his sleeve a bit...the effect of the glove under the arm drill is to establish a feel of connection...a good golfer will do this, and apparently as supported by players on the PGA, a good golfer will also pull up his sleeve to make himself comfortable and garner no penalty for doing so...

I have answers, and I can look things up...I'm here on the site to kick ideas around...if I wanted to go "find things on my own" I would, just like if you don't feel like answering you shouldn't have to ...what is this place coming to if I can't count on the resident "rules guy" for a legitimate discussion...

Other answers that I feel that I know since you aren't weighing in...

-A heavy club is ok as long as it conforms to standard rules regarding clubs (size, cor, amount of clubs in the bag)
-A doughnut wouldn't be ok nor would a weighted swing stick with no clubhead to be used during a round of golf (or a swing jacket or hitting the putting green although practice putts after holing out are alright)

It's got to be lonely up on that high horse Atticus...

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by Bigvivec

Nice...rules guy cops an attitude!

My point, and JP's and Filey's was that should you adjust a shirt to be comfortable and that comfort includes pinning the material between the body and the arm so as to have full freedom of movement, would that be the same as an obvious breach like sticking a glove under the arm? And you are right...we know the answer as we see it on the tube every week as a golfer steps into his stance, he pulls up his sleeve a bit...the effect of the glove under the arm drill is to establish a feel of connection...a good golfer will do this, and apparently as supported by players on the PGA, a good golfer will also pull up his sleeve to make himself comfortable and garner no penalty for doing so...

I have answers, and I can look things up...I'm here on the site to kick ideas around...if I wanted to go "find things on my own" I would, just like if you don't feel like answering you shouldn't have to ...what is this place coming to if I can't count on the resident "rules guy" for a legitimate discussion...

Other answers that I feel that I know since you aren't weighing in...

-A heavy club is ok as long as it conforms to standard rules regarding clubs (size, cor, amount of clubs in the bag)
-A doughnut wouldn't be ok nor would a weighted swing stick with no clubhead to be used during a round of golf (or a swing jacket or hitting the putting green although practice putts after holing out are alright)

It's got to be lonely up on that high horse Atticus...

You completely misread me on that one. I thought I read a desire to learn the rules in your posts and was suggesting a better use of your efforts would be to learn how to find the answer yourself, especially when your question is directly addressed in the rules and decisions. Thats how I did it. No high horse involved. just an interest in seeing others appreciate the rules and how they work.

Sorry you were offended.

[Bigvivec]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

You completely misread me on that one. I thought I read a desire to learn the rules in your posts and was suggesting a better use of your efforts would be to learn how to find the answer yourself, especially when your question is directly addressed in the rules and decisions. Thats how I did it. No high horse involved. just an interest in seeing others appreciate the rules and how they work.

Sorry you were offended.

I'll get over it...

I pretty much stick to my battered little USGA copy of the rules that I keep in my bag and confine my reading to time spent waiting on the tee box...I pretty much direct my efforts to discussion...finding the answer for the sake of finding the answer isn't half as much fun as kicking the bone around the board...

[coralpro]

I've seen many a pro adjust their sleeve in some way as part of their preshot and perhaps that is a mental thing on their intention to remind themselves about a certain move on the bakcswing or downswing but I haven't seen any roll or tuck part of their shirt sleeve and hold it to their body. I believe this is one of those situations in which the person doing it knows why and should police themselves in the spirit of the game.

[Wazmankg]

Let's assume that adjusting ones shirt for the purpose being discussed is against the rule(s). Wouldn't it be impossible for anyone but the player himself to call them on it ? I know that players call rules violations on themselves all of the time, but are there any that fall under this category ? No one knows intent but the player and if their intent was to use it as a swing aid, they

a) wouldn't do it in the first place

or

b) wouldn't admit to that being their intent

so isn't this debate moot ?

....and can't we all just get along ?

[tour_insider]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

You say semantics like its a dirty word or is a trivial distraction.

It was the latter in this case, and geez, take it easy... you don't have to throw down on everyone who ventures an opinion.