Anchored Putters Rules Change - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

Let him sue.

He'll have a good chance of winning. The fact remains that no substantive justification has yet been produced for the move to ban anchored putting -- i.e. that it demonstrably constitutes an unfair advantage. The objections are either aesthetic ("It looks bad! Boo.") or philosophical ("Not how a stroke is made! Hrrumph.")   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

 

He'll have a good chance of winning. The fact remains that no substantive justification has yet been produced for the move to ban anchored putting -- i.e. that it demonstrably constitutes an unfair advantage. The objections are either aesthetic ("It looks bad! Boo.") or philosophical ("Not how a stroke is made! Hrrumph.")   

I would disagree strongly that he would have a good chance of winning.  Unless you can present something somewhat official stating that the tour (or whomever would be getting sued) has to prove that it creates an unfair advantage, I am fairly confident that that will NOT be the issue with which the case turns on.

I doubt any court would rule against the USGA or PGA Tour for modifying rules within their organization.  If they did I can see MLB pitchers hiring lawyers to argue that the balk is an unfair rule that inhibits their pitching motion. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

If they did I can see MLB pitchers hiring lawyers to argue that the balk is an unfair rule that inhibits their pitching motion. 

Have MLB pitchers been allowed to balk for 75 years, but now the rule is about to be arbitrarily amended? Poor analogy anyway. More like baseball outlawing submarine pitching. It's never really been a big factor one way or another, but the commish just thinks it looks weird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

 

Have MLB pitchers been allowed to balk for 75 years, but now the rule is about to be arbitrarily amended? Poor analogy anyway. More like baseball outlawing submarine pitching. It's never really been a big factor one way or another, but the commish just thinks it looks weird.

Still not sure he would have much of a claim against the USGA.

I think this is going to get ugly.  And think it is ridiculous that Tim Clark states he has a physical limitation.  The dude can swing a freaking golf club.  He can make a conventional putting stroke.  Turn your shoulders Timmy!  Turn your shoulders!!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday 

If banned, are they going to reimburse me the $230 I spent 4 months ago on the Nike Method belly putter? 

I would doubt they will ban the putter.  you just won't be allowed to anchor it to your belly when putting.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

 

Have MLB pitchers been allowed to balk for 75 years, but now the rule is about to be arbitrarily amended? Poor analogy anyway. More like baseball outlawing submarine pitching. It's never really been a big factor one way or another, but the commish just thinks it looks weird.

You're projecting here.  I think most people realize it's not being potentially banned because it looks weird.  The argument will be something about whether anchoring is a proper golf stroke or not, and the legal matter will likely be whether or not the USGA or the Tour has the ability to make such a judgement call.

I can't think of any great analogies to use as precedent.  But the reality is that some major sports change their rules every year to improve the game in some way or another (either to make it more watchable, marketable or equitable).  This type of ruling would be more akin to a sport changing or instituting a rule that is meant to address a newly exploited trend in the sport.

I remember when I played college football there was a "halo rule" for punt returners (of which I was one).  The halo rule stated that at no time before the punt returner caught the ball could a defending team come within two yards of him.  For me, this made the "fair catch" useless.  I would catch the ball anywhere on the field knowing that I would always have enough time to avoid an oncoming tackler because he would have to slow down so as to not be in violation.  Eventually they did away with this rule as more and more punt returners took advantage of it.  It's that sort of exploitative trend that typically necessitates rule changes in sports.  

On a different note, if the tour or the USGA cannot prove that anchoring provides an unfair advantage, it probably makes it equally difficult for a claimant to prove that they are at an unfair disadvantage by not being allowed to anchor.  If a claimant attempts to use physical disability as a reconciling argument, it will probably not share the same success that the Casey Martin case had, as I'm pretty certain the issue in that case boiled down to whether or not walking the course was integral to the sport or not.  In this case, no reasonable person can claim that putting is NOT integral to the sport.  Therefore, I'm of the opinion that physical disabilities will NOT be taken into consideration in a hypothetical case like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

2Let him sue.

The lawyers will be the Huge profiteers with this type of change. IMO, Two to three years of litigation, if passed it won't be implemented 2-3 years later on Pro level only, until undisclosed implementation in public golf.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sticky 

I don't think there should be rules that are different for pros versus ams.  The rules of golf are the rules of golf, you're either playing the rules or not.

They are already different in some regard. I know that amateurs can still use non-conforming U-type grooved wedges until 2024 (as long as the club was manufactured before 2010). Tour players have had to use conforming V-type grooves since 2010.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I doubt any court would rule against the USGA or PGA Tour for modifying rules within their organization.  If they did I can see MLB pitchers hiring lawyers to argue that the balk is an unfair rule that inhibits their pitching motion. 

They made the Tour change their cart rule for Casey Martin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I doubt any court would rule against the USGA or PGA Tour for modifying rules within their organization. If they did I can see MLB pitchers hiring lawyers to argue that the balk is an unfair rule that inhibits their pitching motion.

The balk rule goes back to the 1900's. I don't think that very contentious change. There is some talk of tweaking the rule but I don't see this as an issue among pitchers.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52 

They made the Tour change their cart rule for Casey Martin.

Imagine if the PGA made Ams walk all courses., no carts for anyone.... What about the Senior PGA tour, I'm sure physical limitations would be a very viable litigation point.

Re: MLB Balk rule, statement from pitcher.....

Major League Baseball is poised to pick off the much-maligned move, the fake-to-third, throw-to-first ploy that often succeeds only in getting the whole ballpark to shout “Balk!”

 “I think they should get rid of it,” Yankees reliever Boone Logan said. “Us lefties can’t do that. If we do, they call a balk. "Besides, how often does it work? Maybe once in never.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

Let him sue.

 

He'll have a good chance of winning. The fact remains that no substantive justification has yet been produced for the move to ban anchored putting -- i.e. that it demonstrably constitutes an unfair advantage. The objections are either aesthetic ("It looks bad! Boo.") or philosophical ("Not how a stroke is made! Hrrumph.")   

Your premise there though is that the Tour is *required* to produce any justification at all.  Is that really the case?  I've never heard of professional sports leagues being subject to or accountable to any outside agency in terms of what they decide their rules should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stretch 

Have MLB pitchers been allowed to balk for 75 years, but now the rule is about to be arbitrarily amended? Poor analogy anyway. More like baseball outlawing submarine pitching. It's never really been a big factor one way or another, but the commish just thinks it looks weird.

I can't think of any great analogies to use as precedent.  But the reality is that some major sports change their rules every year to improve the game in some way or another (either to make it more watchable, marketable or equitable).  This type of ruling would be more akin to a sport changing or instituting a rule that is meant to address a newly exploited trend in the sport.

I think there are some good analogies in the NBA. A while back they instituted a new rule where an offensive player can't back down a defensive player for more than 5 seconds.  Using the same argument as is being used for a putting stroke change, those players who successfully employed a strategy of backing down defenders for more than 5 seconds were put at a disadvantage. Granted, it didn't reduce their livelihood directly since they get paid the same for a given game, but it did reduce their effectiveness as a player, which certainly could have an effect on their livelihood when their contract comes up for renewal.

I agree though a better analogy than my balk rule in baseball would be if the NBA banned Rick Barry's free throw technique, or actually enforced the traveling rule.  In any case, how a sport chooses to implement the rules for professionals would likely not be something the courts would want to get involved with. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

Your premise there though is that the Tour is *required* to produce any justification at all.  Is that really the case?  I've never heard of professional sports leagues being subject to or accountable to any outside agency in terms of what they decide their rules should be.

 

 

I think there are some good analogies in the NBA. A while back they instituted a new rule where an offensive player can't back down a defensive player for more than 5 seconds.  Using the same argument as is being used for a putting stroke change, those players who successfully employed a strategy of backing down defenders for more than 5 seconds were put at a disadvantage. Granted, it didn't reduce their livelihood directly since they get paid the same for a given game, but it did reduce their effectiveness as a player, which certainly could have an effect on their livelihood when their contract comes up for renewal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I agree though a better analogy than my balk rule in baseball would be if the NBA banned Rick Barry's free throw technique, or actually enforced the traveling rule.  In any case, how a sport chooses to implement the rules for professionals would likely not be something the courts would want to get involved with. 

 

Quote:

I claim ignorance as to the power and influence of the PGA's governing body in comparison to other sports. I also admit NBA,NFL,MLB and NHL have the ability to modify rules as long as it doesn't go against the collective bargaining agreement.

However, disability exceptions is a powerful influence in the courts. Speaking as someone who is in this position and having fused vertebrae, I have had to abandon  shorter putters to ease the strain on my game. I agree litigation in the PGA tour would be unlikely with the exception of individuals with disabilities, even more prevalent on the senior tour. However, this rule would be aggressively challenged in the public golfing rule and hence possible litigation discrimination lawsuits.

The interesting question remains, should the PGA tour rules apply in all situations with public golf???

I think by 2016 they will be banned on tour and 2020 for the public, like what an above user already posted.  I think most pros won't have too tough of a time switching, I know that Adam Scott and Keegan Bradley practice with a traditional aswell.