Fitzpatrick Cracked Driver Denied Replacement

[p1n9183]

Taking a quick look at the video, it wasn't enough damaged (on camera) to affect ball flight in my opinion. I think he just took his chances with a referee in hopes he will be allowed to change it. 

A couple months ago I cracked my Driver on the warm up of a mid am. It sounded different and of course the ball wasn't going as far, but the flight was somewhat predictable and the lost in carry wasn't that huge to drop down to 3 wood so I played the 36 holes with that club and proceeded to replace it (under warranty) for the next tournament. 

I drove it pretty well that tournament, stats told me I loose 10 yards but it was accurate enough to be a better selection than 3 wood. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, p1n9183 said:

Taking a quick look at the video, it wasn't enough damaged (on camera) to affect ball flight in my opinion. I think he just took his chances with a referee in hopes he will be allowed to change it. 

A couple months ago I cracked my Driver on the warm up of a mid am. It sounded different and of course the ball wasn't going as far, but the flight was somewhat predictable and the lost in carry wasn't that huge to drop down to 3 wood so I played the 36 holes with that club and proceeded to replace it (under warranty) for the next tournament. 

I drove it pretty well that tournament, stats told me I loose 10 yards but it was accurate enough to be a better selection than 3 wood. 

Even a tiny crack is enough to change ball flight at the PGA Tour level. Plus the next swing might completely collapse it.

[turtleback]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

Even a tiny crack is enough to change ball flight at the PGA Tour level. Plus the next swing might completely collapse it.

And unless one believes he tanked his next drive, the cracked face appears to have affected the ball flight.

[Rulesman]

54 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And unless one believes he tanked his next drive, the cracked face appears to have affected the ball flight.

Are you suggesting there was significant other damage?

Given that a club is “broken or significantly damaged” when: The clubhead is visibly and significantly deformed (but not when the clubhead is only cracked)

 

[Vinsk]

13 hours ago, Rulesman said:

but not when the clubhead is only cracked)

It wasn’t the clubhead. It was the club face. Either way,  sounds like the rule suggests that just a crack won’t affect ball flight thus the club isn’t damaged? A little disingenuous that a paper thin sticker anywhere on the club face deems a club non-conforming because it could affect the ball flight but a crack …won’t?

[GolfLug]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

It wasn’t the clubhead. It was the club face. Either way,  sounds like the rule suggests that just a crack won’t affect ball flight thus the club isn’t damaged? A little disingenuous that a paper thin sticker anywhere on the club face deems a club non-conforming because it could affect the ball flight but a crack …won’t?

So my understanding is that not that a crack on the clubface is inconsequential but that it is hard to determine the difference from something like a scratch. The rule is to protect players from requesting club replacements under the disguise of 'damage'. And yes, I think there are non-damage related reasons (illegal) someone would want to change a driver mid-round. 

I could be totally off-base here but that's what I concluded from everything I didn't read 😂.

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

It wasn’t the clubhead. It was the club face. Either way,  sounds like the rule suggests that just a crack won’t affect ball flight thus the club isn’t damaged? A little disingenuous that a paper thin sticker anywhere on the club face deems a club non-conforming because it could affect the ball flight but a crack …won’t?

just so we all understand what the rule actually says, I'll quote it, you can replace a club if:

" The club face impact area is visibly deformed (but not when the club face is only scratched or cracked)"

I can't say for certain why the MLR was written this way, or why the Tour has chosen to use it, but I suspect that @GolfLug is on the right track.  The officials interpreted the rule correctly,  from everything I've read.  If anyone must be "blamed", look to tour management, including the players advisory group.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

It wasn’t the clubhead. It was the club face. Either way,  sounds like the rule suggests that just a crack won’t affect ball flight thus the club isn’t damaged? A little disingenuous that a paper thin sticker anywhere on the club face deems a club non-conforming because it could affect the ball flight but a crack …won’t?

Kevin, man, c'mon. It's been addressed.

• The sticker comparison is bogus. The rule is simple: don't add anything to the clubface. It's sacred territory. Simple rule, easily enforced, with valid reasons.
• The regular rule of golf would have allowed replacement for a crack.
• The PGA Tour has the MLR in place, G-9, so more than a small crack is required. That's all. Reasons may be as I've said and as @Vinsk recently said.

[colin007]

"Not when the club face is only cracked" = stupid rule

[iacas]

58 minutes ago, colin007 said:

"Not when the club face is only cracked" = stupid rule

Oy. It's a Local Rule the PGA Tour puts into place. It wouldn't affect you even if you ever did play an event, as they'd just use 4.1a(2) without G-9.

@colin007 did you read the topic before replying with the same off-the-cuff reaction that has already been replied to a few times?

I realize I'm "stanning" a bit for the Rules of Golf, but this is a PGA Tour issue, and those saying "stupid rule" should direct their ire there, not at the "rule."

(I get that a Local Rule is also part of the "rules" of golf, but this feels like an MLR that the PGA Tour asked to have included. I'm not even sure I'd been aware of this MLR until recently and it's never been talked about in any of my rules seminars or come up in any tournaments.)

[DaveP043]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm not even sure I'd been aware of this MLR until recently and it's never been talked about in any of my rules seminars or come up in any tournaments

I have some vague memory of this rule, but like you I don't remember it ever being discussed in a rules Workshop.

I ran across this article, which quotes a retired tour caddie explainng why he thinks the rules is being used.

Tour insider shares “real reason” Matt Fitzpatrick wasn’t allowed to change driver | bunkered.co.uk

---

One tour insider has given the "real reason" why Matt Fitzpatrick wasn't allowed to change his driver at the BMW Championship.

“If pros were allowed to replace a driver with any sort of a crack, manufacturers would build the faces as thin as legally possible. It is a roundabout way of controlling distance.

“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.”

[klineka]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I realize I'm "stanning" a bit for the Rules of Golf, but this is a PGA Tour issue, and those saying "stupid rule" should direct their ire there, not at the "rule."

I'm confused by this.

IMO it doesn't matter on what tour(s) the rule applies or who asked for it, the fact that the rule exists at all is stupid. 

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, klineka said:

IMO it doesn't matter on what tour(s) the rule applies or who asked for it, the fact that the rule exists at all is stupid. 

The point is your issue is with the PGA Tour.

I think it's stupid to say "the rule is stupid" before you even know what the reasons for the rule are.

[DaveP043]

26 minutes ago, klineka said:

I'm confused by this.

IMO it doesn't matter on what tour(s) the rule applies or who asked for it, the fact that the rule exists at all is stupid. 

Did you read what @GolfLug suggested, or the thoughts from a retired caddie at the link I posted?   You might compare this with the basic Rule, 4.1a(2), which says "“Damaged during a round ” means when any part, feature, or property of a club is changed because of any act during the round ".   A chip in the paint, I want to replace this.  A scratch on the face, I want to replace this.  And I want to replace this 6* driver with a 12* driver for this next (downwind) hole.   Or I don't need this 3-iron for the rest of the round, its scratched, I'll replace it with a wedge.  And at the top levels, a player CAN have a brand new club in his bag within a few minutes, unlike the rest of us.  The MLR limits replacement of clubs, I believe to minimize just these kinds of club changes.  

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Did you read what @GolfLug suggested, or the thoughts from a retired caddie at the link I posted?   You might compare this with the basic Rule, 4.1a(2), which says "“Damaged during a round ” means when any part, feature, or property of a club is changed because of any act during the round ".   A chip in the paint, I want to replace this.  A scratch on the face, I want to replace this.  And I want to replace this 6* driver with a 12* driver for this next (downwind) hole.   Or I don't need this 3-iron for the rest of the round, its scratched, I'll replace it with a wedge.  And at the top levels, a player CAN have a brand new club in his bag within a few minutes, unlike the rest of us.  The MLR limits replacement of clubs, I believe to minimize just these kinds of club changes.  

Exactly.

[klineka]

29 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Did you read what @GolfLug suggested, or the thoughts from a retired caddie at the link I posted?   You might compare this with the basic Rule, 4.1a(2), which says "“Damaged during a round ” means when any part, feature, or property of a club is changed because of any act during the round ".   A chip in the paint, I want to replace this.  A scratch on the face, I want to replace this.  And I want to replace this 6* driver with a 12* driver for this next (downwind) hole.   Or I don't need this 3-iron for the rest of the round, its scratched, I'll replace it with a wedge.  And at the top levels, a player CAN have a brand new club in his bag within a few minutes, unlike the rest of us.  The MLR limits replacement of clubs, I believe to minimize just these kinds of club changes.  

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?

[turtleback]

21 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Are you suggesting there was significant other damage?

Given that a club is “broken or significantly damaged” when: The clubhead is visibly and significantly deformed (but not when the clubhead is only cracked)

 

No, I'm suggesting it is a stupid Local Rule that is at odds with reality.

[GolfLug]

3 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?

Determined by the stickers/stampings on the clubs/shafts?? 😊