Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[mvmac]

Keegan tweeted this yesterday, lol

[colin007]

Originally Posted by dave67az

With all due respect, I have NEVER seen a yardage marker in a fairway or on a tee box that tells you how far you need to carry to clear a bunker or water hazard.  To say that the on-course markers are the same as GPS is ridiculous.

i see them all time - plates embedded on the tee box - "270 to the water"  "260 to the bridge" etc...

[colin007]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Keegan tweeted this yesterday, lol

lol thats funny!  good sense of humor.  he'll do fine.

[newtogolf]

He eventually will, but my guess is that he and some others are consulting with lawyers right now to determine if there's a way to overturn the rule.

Originally Posted by colin007

lol thats funny!  good sense of humor.  he'll do fine.

[RonTheSavage]

Originally Posted by colin007

i see them all time - plates embedded on the tee box - "270 to the water"  "260 to the bridge" etc...

Yeah the new nice carts at my local course have GPS screens in them

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Keegan tweeted this yesterday, lol

LOL.  I get the impression that most of the younger belly putter guys like Keegan and Webb are going to be unfazed by this rule change.

[newtogolf]

Bradley has reconsidered his position on the rule change from October and is not going to fight the USGA decision.

Quote:

Bradley also made it clear he would not join Ernie Els if the 2012 British Open winner followed through on previous threats to take the USGA/R&A; to court.

"They’re going to have a couple of legal matters coming their way," Els said in October prior to the HBSC WGC Championship. "It's going to be a bit of an issue now."

Bradley said he never subscribed to Els’ approach and would not after Wednesday.  “I’m going to obviously obey the rules and respect what the USGS does,” Bradley said. “I’m not going to cause a big problem.”

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MerVal

You guys are vastly oversimplifying the Casey Martin Ruling. Just because it had to do with walking means you need to recognize the arguments made as to why they allowed walking, because that is the precedent made. If the PGA is meant a commercial enterprise meant to serve the economic benefit of its members, then how can they ban anchoring unless they can prove it isn't a true stroke, it deprives its members of income. (USGA is different, they can make the rule cause they are a private club whose membership doesnt depend on them as income.

As someone who is a great ballstriker and a marginal putter, who has found benefit competitively in a switch to a belly putter I am frustrated. People who are terrible at hitting the ball can still play well because drivers and irons are 10x more forgiving than they should be. They marginalized the ballstrikers advantage, while refusing to do this for putters. Ban drivers over 360cc, and ban cavity and musclebacks and im happy.

Also the reason you don't see many people complaining is because it is a minority of users. Most people simply don't care. If they banned Nike Drivers...most people would be like "sure, i dont care. i use Taylormade or Titleist"...so it would seem like most people were fine with it but every single Nike user user would be upset. But itd be a minority

There are several high MOI putters available which offer the same sort of advantages that the GI irons  or oversize drivers offer (I use one myself).  But they still have to be used with a proper golf stroke.  If you are a good ball striker then you ought to be able to learn how to strike the ball with the putter.  Your complaints are just lending support to those who feel that the long putter  should be banned because it makes the game easier by removing one variable in the stroke.

[saevel25]

Well the issue is, people are confusing long putters and belly putters with the action used in the putting. You can use them and no anchor them. The problem is the method in which they are used.

Also, only maybe a handful of people were using them, and they were not big name players winning majors at the time. The issue is, the USGA wants to stop this trend now before the next generation of golfers all putt anchoring the putter. Basically it protects the future of golf and the integrity of how putting should be done.

I put it similar to palming the basketball, once all these kids saw they could palm the ball and make people miss on a dribble, the leagues had to ban it. Its to protect the integrity of the sport.

honestly there is no contriversy, its just now the issue has become one big enough to handle.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Bradley has reconsidered his position on the rule change from October and is not going to fight the USGA decision.

It will be interesting to see if Webb or Keegan start using a non-anchored style of putting before 2016.  I would imagine there's going to be pressure to do so.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by RayG

And Seriously, wait 4 years for it to take effect? These guys change clubs and swings practically on a weekly basis.

It seems equitable to me that way.  Otherwise it burdens/impacts some players in an inequitable fashion.

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Wow.. are you really this brain dead stupid? Tell us how GPS systems are not a violation of the USGA rules?

Calm down, or at least do some Google research before you start with the ad hominem.

Originally Posted by griecke

It's the same old thing; "I will make a rule so YOU can't win".

C'mon, Gary...you don't really believe this is the case.  Rory AND Tiger both won plenty this past golf season, including a major.  Does there really need to be a conspiracy to keep other players from winning?

Originally Posted by MerVal

You guys are vastly oversimplifying the Casey Martin Ruling. Just because it had to do with walking means you need to recognize the arguments made as to why they allowed walking, because that is the precedent made. If the PGA is meant a commercial enterprise meant to serve the economic benefit of its members, then how can they ban anchoring unless they can prove it isn't a true stroke, it deprives its members of income. (USGA is different, they can make the rule cause they are a private club whose membership doesnt depend on them as income.

I understand your frustration, however I must address two points:

1) The "precedent", in case law, is determined when another case's findings have circumstances/facts identical or similar to the current issue before the court.  So all facts and events must be considered, not the arguments themselves.  In this matter, it IS a very different set of circumstances.  The court, in effect (and as I understand it), avoided taking on the rules of competition by determining that walking the course was not a part of the competition.  It's a subtle but important distinction from them actually determining that a rule of competition was unfair or should be changed.

Let me offer an analogy.  Imagine the NFL having a rule that players must be at a full sprint on-and-off the field of play (for whatever reason), including in between plays and going to and from the locker room.  In that type of case, one argument before the court might be that the Casey Martin case sets precedent here in determining that walking to and from the locker room is NOT a part of the sport and thus that action is not subject to rules from the NFL's competition committee.  The other side may argue that some facts make it substantially different...but that is getting too far off point.  IMO, that case would be similar.

However, the court hypothetically ruling that the NFL has no right to set the rules of Intentional Grounding or a Holding penalty is altogether different.  It is highly unlikely that a court would rule that a sport cannot govern actions that actually are a core function of the sport.  And it is highly unlikely that a persuasive argument could be made that the golf stroke, or the putting stroke is not a core function for participating in the sport.

2) There is no default burden of proof for the USGA (or whomever) to justify a rule-change with evidence or empirical data.  They don't have to prove it isn't a legal stroke, they can simply say it isn't a legal stroke.  The same way they simply said there were non-conforming grooves one year.  The same way the NFL said there was such thing as "illegal contact" one year.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Bradley has reconsidered his position on the rule change from October and is not going to fight the USGA decision.

Not surprising.  I figured the guys would complain about it, but only the most petulant among them would actually follow through with legal action.  I'm not sure they realize how bad the PR would be from that.  It would make them look like whiners.  These are not people that are anywhere near the sympathetic figure that Casey Martin was.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by colin007

i see them all time - plates embedded on the tee box - "270 to the water"  "260 to the bridge" etc...

Apparently I need to play at better courses or something because on the some 30-odd courses I've played in my life, I can honestly say I've never seen this.  My apologies for my ignorance when it comes to yardage markers.

[JerseyThursday]

I’m guessing the 3+ year delay for enforcement would be to lessen the chances of a class action suit by the manufacturers, who have a lot of $$$ invested in design & production of a product that no one is going to want. Or, a class action suit by consumers who have a lot of $ in products they bought that are no longer legal to play (in competition).

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

I’m guessing the 3+ year delay for enforcement would be to lessen the chances of a class action suit by the manufacturers, who have a lot of $$$ invested in design & production of a product that no one is going to want. Or, a class action suit by consumers who have a lot of $ in products they bought that are no longer legal to play (in competition).

Odyssey has already come out with a statement to the effect that they have no intention of disputing this rule change.  They will continue to make long putter for those who want to use them until the new rule goes into effect.

[JerseyThursday]

For clarification: does this new ruling mean you can no longer have your elbow(s) touching your sides?

[newtogolf]

My understanding is your elbows can touch your sides.  The rule does not allow the club to be anchored to your body, neck or head.  You can anchor it to your forearm and your elbows and be tucked to your sides.

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

For clarification: does this new ruling mean you can no longer have your elbow(s) touching your sides?

[Archie Bunker]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

I’m guessing the 3+ year delay for enforcement would be to lessen the chances of a class action suit by the manufacturers, who have a lot of $$$ invested in design & production of a product that no one is going to want. Or, a class action suit by consumers who have a lot of $ in products they bought that are no longer legal to play (in competition).

Not a problem at all. Easy to fix with a hacksaw. Maybe there will be a cottage industry for making your belly or "long" putter legal in 2016.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

I’m guessing the 3+ year delay for enforcement would be to lessen the chances of a class action suit by the manufacturers, who have a lot of $$$ invested in design & production of a product that no one is going to want. Or, a class action suit by consumers who have a lot of $ in products they bought that are no longer legal to play (in competition).

Again, the clubs themselves are not being made illegal, so I'm not sure what grounds they would have for a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by JerseyThursday

For clarification: does this new ruling mean you can no longer have your elbow(s) touching your sides?

Go back a few pages and Mvmac posted a detailed graphic of what is and what is not legal, but basically, what newtogolf said is correct;  The club (or your hand gripping the club) cannot be anchored against your body.  The guy in your picture is legal.