ColonelMac

I'm not sure how tamping down spike marks would lead to slow play but brushing sand and dirt, or picking leaves and other loose impediments off the intended line does not. If the course is to be played as you find it, then the player should not be able to touch the intended line for any reason. If players do NOT follow proper etiquette and tamp down spike marks after the completion of the hole before leaving the green, the question still is why should a player in a following group have to risk losing a hole because of a previous player's negligence? What USEFUL purpose is being served?

In reading through the comments about this incident, all the discussion centers around various interpretations of the applicable rule, even to the extent of trying to determine WHAT rule actually applies and why. The very purpose of rules and regulations is to provide specific instructions so that subjective judgments are eliminated to the maximum extent possible. They must possess a logically rational purpose so that disagreements based on subjective judgments don’t arise BECAUSE the intent of the rule is either unclear or absurd. Trying to determine what is “normal” damage that is NOT repairable and “abnormal” damage which IS leads to just such subjective judgments. They can lead to arguments among recreational golfers obsessing over a putt to win a $5 Nassau as well as professionals for whom a single putt could mean a $30,000 difference in winnings for a tournament. In the days of Old Tom Morris, when sheep grazed on golf courses, footprints on the greens made by the sheep were played as rub of the green. At some point, that was judged to be “good” repairable damage. Why? Apparently it was decided that it made the game fairer and more enjoyable. The game of golf was played allowing the Stymie until 1952 when it was eliminated. Why? Again, it was apparently decided that it was basically unfair and served no useful purpose. At some point in time, the USGA/R&A; decided to declare ball marks on the putting green as “good” damage, allowing repair. Yet, at the same time, spike marks were (and still are) deemed “bad” damage that cannot be repaired. The advent of soft spikes has reduced the incidence of spike marks. But, you still encounter patches around the hole where someone has “scuffed up” the grass by not lifting their feet. We see this on our home course on a daily basis. If the course is to be played “as it is found”, then it should be played that way with NO EXCEPTIONS. No brushing dirt or sand or leaves off your intended line of putt. No fixing of ball marks or ANYTHING you find on the course. If, on the other hand, loose impediments can be moved and some kinds of damage may be repaired, then make ALL type of damage repairable and remove the ambiguity and subjectivity. Why should any player run the risk of losing a hole because of the carelessness of another player? And, why should a professional like Matt Kuchar be forced to place his livelihood in the hands of an amateur golfer who probably has trouble breaking 80 but who, because he is a “Rules Official”, gets to impose his judgment. To those who say the Rules of Golf need not be simplified, I say Rubbish. There are simply too many instances where the reason for a particular rule is completely unclear, makes no sense, and serves no useful purpose. Even the USGA and R&A; can't (or won't) explain why ball marks can be repaired and spike marks can't. This is probably because even THEY can't articulate a clear, compelling reason for maintaining the rule as it stands. Their attitude is " We're in charge here. WE make the rules based on OUR preferences. YOU just play by those rules and keep your mouth shut".