Fitzpatrick Cracked Driver Denied Replacement

[DaveP043]

39 minutes ago, klineka said:

Seems like that could easily be solved by saying that the replacement club has to be of the same make, model, loft, shaft, length, etc, right?

Reallly, do you have a spare $600 driver available to substitute in if your current club breaks?  Of course there are ways that both rule 4.1 and the MLR could be rewritten, but I'm not sure any of them would be a real improvement.  The first allows the fairly liberal replacement of a damaged club, the second restricts things significantly.  One could be manipulated by a player with great resources, the other might be a bit too restrictive in some circumstances, but I don't see them as "stupid".

[klineka]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

and the MLR could be rewritten, but I'm not sure any of them would be a real improvement. 

That's specifically what I was referring to, not to the general rule.

How wouldn't a clause that includes cracked face as justification for replacement but requiring it to be replaced with the same spec club not be an improvement to the MLR?

Wouldn't that solve the issue you outlined a few posts ago, the potential issue of players swapping to a different club to gain an advantage?

 

The part that I think is stupid (regardless of who actually wrote the rule) is that someone's club can be damaged enough to have a direct impact on the ball flight but they aren't allowed to replace it. That seems stupid to me. I'm struggling to think of another sport where a competitor is forced to use a broken tool/instrument that affects their performance simply because it's not broken "enough". 

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

I'm struggling to think of another sport where a competitor is forced to use a broken tool/instrument that affects their performance simply because it's not broken "enough

I'm not sure I know of another sport that restricts a player to a specific number of " tools" in the first place. 

Ill be interested to see the fallout from this incident.  It seems possible that the tour could write a Local Rule to address it, and submit it to the USGA/R&A for approval.  I'll also look through the hard cards for the organizations I officiate with, to see if any of them use G-9.  I'm pretty sure none of them use G-4, the one ball rule, I'd be astounded if they use G-9 even at the highest state championships.

[turtleback]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Reallly, do you have a spare $600 driver available to substitute in if your current club breaks?  Of course there are ways that both rule 4.1 and the MLR could be rewritten, but I'm not sure any of them would be a real improvement.  The first allows the fairly liberal replacement of a damaged club, the second restricts things significantly.  One could be manipulated by a player with great resources, the other might be a bit too restrictive in some circumstances, but I don't see them as "stupid".

Everyone on the protour has the ability to have spare $600 drivers in reserve.

[klineka]

59 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Everyone on the protour has the ability to have spare $600 drivers in reserve.

Yeah, that's specifically what I was talking about since the MLR is only on the PGA Tour.

[Vinsk]

15 hours ago, klineka said:

The part that I think is stupid (regardless of who actually wrote the rule) is that someone's club can be damaged enough to have a direct impact on the ball flight but they aren't allowed to replace it. That seems stupid to me

This is the point I was trying to make. The MLR trying to protect against what @DaveP043 mentioned is also preventing a player from replacing a club that has a defect that could affect performance. I know there may be some rapscallions out there, but I think this issue with MF is much more likely to occur than players trying to gain an advantage by abusing the rule.

[GolfLug]

I would think the rule (including all MLRs) is blessed by the player's committee on the PGAT. We can guess/'logicate' from outside looking in but something tells me they know better, i.e., there is a good reason this rule is in place in spite of what we think are obvious counter arguments against it.  

Edited August 30 by GolfLug

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

This is the point I was trying to make. The MLR trying to protect against what @DaveP043 mentioned is also preventing a player from replacing a club that has a defect that could affect performance. I know there may be some rapscallions out there, but I think this issue with MF is much more likely to occur than players trying to gain an advantage by abusing the rule.

The other concern, which was presented in the article I linked a couple days ago, is the "creep" of driver faces through normal wear.  Players want the hottest face available, a slightly older driver might become longer as the face gets thinner.  Per a retired caddie:

"“Written this way, manufacturers have to build their drivers with a bit of a “buffer zone” so they don’t crack more often. The thinner the face, the faster the ball comes off, the more often they would crack and be replaced with another one also pushed right up against the limit.”

Randomized individual driver testing began in 2019 on the Tour.  Drivers right on the edge of the tolerance are allowed to be used.  Drivers not tested this week can be used, and might have gone just beyond the tolerance due to normal wear.  But those thinner faces are more prone to cracking.  A player is forced to think twice about playing a driver that's more prone to cracking, even if its a little longer, if he's not allowed to replace it for a hairline crack.

And I've said it in many places, playing within the rules is playing within the spirit of the game.  So if the rules were to allow replacement of a club, no matter what the parameters, I have no problem with the player taking advantage of those rules.

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I know there may be some rapscallions out there

By Jove! An Olde Timey word! Doth thou not desire to way protections on the field of play to curtail said rapscallions from currying advantages?

[Vinsk]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

By Jove! An Olde Timey word! Doth thou not desire to way protections on the field of play to curtail said rapscallions from currying advantages?

Once again I knew you’d come through! I typed that and thought, ‘ Oh…Scott’s gonna jump on this one’ Lol.