| USGA
Lack of Clarity?
Written
by Dale Miller and published in it's entireity. Golf Industry and Nexus Internet
take no responsibility for the content of this article. Decision
2000-455 and USGA decision 2000-614 demonstrate the lack of clarity in the wording
and interpretation of the Rules of Golf in Appendix II Design of Clubs.
The above decisions involve the term Striking Faces in Rule 4c in Appendix
II.
In July 2000 Petitioner, Dale Miller, JD submitted a new club called
a Putting Wedge which contained a striking face for use as a putter and a striking
face for use as a wedge, including grooves on the wedge face.
The petitioner was informed that his Putting Wedge has two striking faces and
does not conform with Rule 4c which states: "The clubhead shall have only
one striking face,..."
The design was created by the petitioner
after watching professional golfers use their sand wedge to strike the ball with
the leading edge, not the grooved surface of the sand wedge, when the ball was
off the green up against the edge of the rough.
The need for this
special putter design was heightened after watching the use of putters many yards
off the green at the 2000 British Open Championship.
Petitioner then
filled the grooves in a new conforming design and changed the lie angle. The rounded
sole used in the design of wedges was maintained.
The leading edge was
shaped to be used as a putter striking face. The use of any other striking face
on the Flathead Putter was no more feasible than using a second striking face
on any other approved golf club.
The new model, called a Flathead Putter,
was submitted in October 2000 with one striking face and a lie angle used only
in putter design. The USGA ruled (Decision 2000-614) that the new Flathead Putter
does not conform with Rule 4c in Appendix II because a clubhead shall have only
one striking face.
What is the import of these recent decisions by the
USGA if Rule 4c is uniformly applied to all golfers and manufacturers subject
to the USGA Rules? -
If a golf club design allows a golfer the possibility of using an alternate striking
face to strike a golf ball, the club may not conform with Rule 4c.
-
When playing a shot,
if the golfer intentionally decides not to use the designed striking face on the
club, what penalty is assessed forusing a second striking face which is prohibited
by Rule 4c.
-
If a conforming clubhead shall have only one striking face, then the rules must
require the player intentionally use only the striking face intended to be used
or incur a penalty.
-
The uniform application of Rule 4c would not allow a golfer to use a sandwedge
to intentionally strike a ball with the leading
edge of the club.
- The uniform
application of Rule 4c would never allow a golfer to use the back side or toe
end of any iron or putter, except for a putter with an identical opposite face,
to strike a ball that is in play.
In the name of preserving the essence of the game of golf, is the current USGA
leadership trying to limit creative golf shots and
creative golf club design?
CONTACT: Dale Miller, JD & CEO
Patented Putting Company
678-482-8507 Fax: 678.482.8509
See
readers' response
|
