Just recently at work, they told us that by security regulations, we could no longer use the entry/exit doors that we've always used which are closer to our offices and much more convenient. They decided that the security risks for the future were too great, even though it had been allowed for years. Of course we grumbled a little, but we started using the main entrance because it was a rule identified an outside agency and our company was required to comply because our rules are governed by that agency. We like our jobs, so we use the other door, even though it's out of the way and inconvenient especially for the oldest workers who have a little trouble walking long distances.
Kind of the same thing I'm seeing with this rule:
1: "We've always done it"....... same argument. Doesn't make it right.
2: "It was never specifically against the rules to use those doors, but if you read the security regulations it was against the best interests of the building and it's occupants"...... same argument, since many argue that an anchored putter really didn't constitute a stroke under the original rules. It just wasn't spelled out.
3: "Makes it tougher on people with physical impairments"......... back problems with the conventional putter?
4: "I was taught to enter/exit through that door"......... Oh Well, adapt or find a new job.
5: "Why do we have to follow their rules? We are our own organization." Because they govern the security rules for all DoD facilities. Just like the PGA going against the USGA and R&A's ruling.