Anchored Putters Rules Change (Effective January 1, 2016)

[bplewis24]

If that happens, then what's next?  Wait for the Board to make a decision in response to the "urging" of the commissioner?

[3 Putt Again]

Until about 30 years ago, in American Football, the place kickers all approached the ball straight along the line they intended to kick and basically kicked the ball with their toes.  Then some kickers started approaching the ball from the side and kicking the ball with the side of their foot.  They called it soccer style kicking.  Nearly everyone thought it looked weird and some people wanted it banned because, even though it violated no rule,  the rules intended that the ball be kicked using the toe not the side of the foot.  There was even discussion of how to word the rules to effectively ban this style of kicking.  Eventually, it was decided that if someone had come up with a better way to accomplish the goal of kicking the ball long and accurate, why should it be banned just because it was a better practice.  Today, every place kicker uses the soccer style and the game is no worse off because of it.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again

Until about 30 years ago, in American Football, the place kickers all approached the ball straight along the line they intended to kick and basically kicked the ball with their toes.  Then some kickers started approaching the ball from the side and kicking the ball with the side of their foot.  They called it soccer style kicking.  Nearly everyone thought it looked weird and some people wanted it banned because, even though it violated no rule,  the rules intended that the ball be kicked using the toe not the side of the foot.  There was even discussion of how to word the rules to effectively ban this style of kicking.  Eventually, it was decided that if someone had come up with a better way to accomplish the goal of kicking the ball long and accurate, why should it be banned just because it was a better practice.  Today, every place kicker uses the soccer style and the game is no worse off because of it.

You made the perfect point on why golf organizations don't want anchored putting in the game.  They don't want a "new style" that is "easier" because fine muscle control is a big part of the putting game, and to remove it from the game with an anchored stroke removes a fundamental challenge that is essential to the game.  Is our goal really to change the game to make golf as easy as possible, or is our goal to keep those challenges so those individuals with the talent and ability to hone those skills are rewarded for their efforts?

[NM Golf]

Check this out:

PGA Tour might oppose proposed anchored putting ban at closed meeting on Monday

I guess the Tour boys are finally having an issue with this ban. We will see how this will all play out.

[Stretch]

Too slow. I just got out of bed, sorry.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again

Until about 30 years ago, in American Football, the place kickers all approached the ball straight along the line they intended to kick and basically kicked the ball with their toes.  Then some kickers started approaching the ball from the side and kicking the ball with the side of their foot.  They called it soccer style kicking.  Nearly everyone thought it looked weird and some people wanted it banned because, even though it violated no rule,  the rules intended that the ball be kicked using the toe not the side of the foot.  There was even discussion of how to word the rules to effectively ban this style of kicking.  Eventually, it was decided that if someone had come up with a better way to accomplish the goal of kicking the ball long and accurate, why should it be banned just because it was a better practice.  Today, every place kicker uses the soccer style and the game is no worse off because of it.

Very interesting historical note.  I didn't know that.

However, I don't think it's the same, as that style of kicking didn't fundamentally alter the mechanics of the motion.  It just changed the place on the foot where the ball is struck.  I think the analogy there would be if people wanted to ban the act of using the toe/heel of the putter to tap the ball in.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Very interesting historical note.  I didn't know that.

However, I don't think it's the same, as that style of kicking didn't fundamentally alter the mechanics of the motion.  It just changed the place on the foot where the ball is struck.  I think the analogy there would be if people wanted to ban the act of using the toe/heel of the putter to tap the ball in.

Perhaps a better analogy is if kickers had developed a new style of kicking that required them to wear a specially designed shoe that was twice as big as a normal shoe?

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Perhaps a better analogy is if kickers had developed a new style of kicking that required them to wear a specially designed shoe that was twice as big as a normal shoe?

Or they used a ball that rotated less off the bigger shoes...naw, scratch that. Sounds too much like golf now.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

However, I don't think it's the same, as that style of kicking didn't fundamentally alter the mechanics of the motion.  It just changed the place on the foot where the ball is struck.  I think the analogy there would be if people wanted to ban the act of using the toe/heel of the putter to tap the ball in.

I agree. It's not the same. The equivalent would be more like a kicker discovering he's more accurate from 30 yards and in (with no loss of distance) if he grabs his knee and uses his arms to shove his foot forward.

It's not quite the same analogy because field goal kicking is a blend of power and accuracy.

A better example from football might be the rule about horse collars. It's all "tackling" but that certain style of tackling is illegal. Or cut blocking, or some other forms of blocking (blocking in the back, perhaps) - certain methods of doing the act of blocking or tackling are illegal, but tackling and blocking are a very important part of the game.

[Stretch]

Perhaps we've tortured this analogy enough?

Serious question, if the people who teach golf for a living come out against the rule. And the people who play golf for a living come out against the rule. And the people who make/sell golf clubs for a living come out against the rule. Where does that leave the people who make the rules in their spare time?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Stretch

Serious question, if the people who teach golf for a living come out against the rule. And the people who play golf for a living come out against the rule. And the people who make/sell golf clubs for a living come out against the rule. Where does that leave the people who make the rules in their spare time?

This brings up the question of where the majority lies, though.  In other words, the assumption is that the players are against the ban because of a vocal group of, let's say, 5-10 guys.  Maybe it's more, but I'm just throwing that number out there.  If it's a small minority or even a significant minority, does that change the perception that the "players are against" the ban?

If the input from the players really matters that much, they may as well figure out how many are truly for/against this.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Perhaps a better analogy is if kickers had developed a new style of kicking that required them to wear a specially designed shoe that was twice as big as a normal shoe?

Before the advent of soccer style kicking, there was a special shoe for kickers with a squared off toe.  It was not twice as big but it was designed specifically to help with kicking accuracy and to my knowlege, was never outlawed, it just faded away when soccer style kickers took over that position.

Originally Posted by iacas

I agree. It's not the same. The equivalent would be more like a kicker discovering he's more accurate from 30 yards and in (with no loss of distance) if he grabs his knee and uses his arms to shove his foot forward.

It's not quite the same analogy because field goal kicking is a blend of power and accuracy.

A better example from football might be the rule about horse collars. It's all "tackling" but that certain style of tackling is illegal. Or cut blocking, or some other forms of blocking (blocking in the back, perhaps) - certain methods of doing the act of blocking or tackling are illegal, but tackling and blocking are a very important part of the game.

The horse collar tackle is probably the best comparison among those you listed, since it was legal for many years but was recently made illegal.   Blocking in the back has been illegal for a long time.   Another good example (maybe even better) might be the so-called "targeting" ruling.   I say it might be a better one because not only was that style of tackling legal until a couple of years ago, it was encouraged and even promoted by the NFL through some of it's NFL Films.

[dave67az]

Me thinks a lot of you guys are missing football as much as I am, and the season just ended a few weeks ago.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by 3 Putt Again

Until about 30 years ago, in American Football, the place kickers all approached the ball straight along the line they intended to kick and basically kicked the ball with their toes.  Then some kickers started approaching the ball from the side and kicking the ball with the side of their foot.  They called it soccer style kicking.  Nearly everyone thought it looked weird and some people wanted it banned because, even though it violated no rule,  the rules intended that the ball be kicked using the toe not the side of the foot.  There was even discussion of how to word the rules to effectively ban this style of kicking.  Eventually, it was decided that if someone had come up with a better way to accomplish the goal of kicking the ball long and accurate, why should it be banned just because it was a better practice.  Today, every place kicker uses the soccer style and the game is no worse off because of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

Me thinks a lot of you guys are missing football as much as I am, and the season just ended a few weeks ago.

Nah, they time everything quite well such that we only have a short lull of nothingness (that's what you call this part of basketball season in 2013 if you are a Lakers fan) followed quickly by baseball season!

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Not true for all of them ... The NFL record holder for the longest field goal, Tom Dempsey - 1970, 63 yards (since equaled 3 times), did not kick with his toes.

LOL  That's just wrong.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by iacas

A better example from football might be the rule about horse collars. It's all "tackling" but that certain style of tackling is illegal. Or cut blocking, or some other forms of blocking (blocking in the back, perhaps) - certain methods of doing the act of blocking or tackling are illegal, but tackling and blocking are a very important part of the game.

Originally Posted by teamroper60

The horse collar tackle is probably the best comparison among those you listed, since it was legal for many years but was recently made illegal.   Blocking in the back has been illegal for a long time.   Another good example (maybe even better) might be the so-called "targeting" ruling.   I say it might be a better one because not only was that style of tackling legal until a couple of years ago, it was encouraged and even promoted by the NFL through some of it's NFL Films.

All the football examples are bad comparisons as those rules were all put into place for safety reasons. Banning the anchored putter has nothing to do with safety.

The best comparison I can think of is the one handed set shot and jump shot in basketball. Prior to the 1930's shots in basketball were taken with two hands only and they were taken with both feet on the floor (set shot). In the 30's and 40's some players began developing a one handed set shot and then the one handed jump shot we see in use in today's modern game. It was not only revolutionary, it changed how the game was played completely. The rules had to be adjusted to allow these types of shots. Had the powers in basketball taken the same stance as the USGA I would venture to think basketball would not be nearly the exciting game we see today.

[newtogolf]

It places the USGA and R&A; in a tough spot.  The pro's that use the anchored stroke are obviously against the ban, even if they aren't vocal in public about it.  The pro's that don't use the stroke are likely split as on one hand they don't want to give their competitor an edge but on the other may want the option of switching to it should they have to.  I can see the PGA Tour coming out against the ban which places the PGA in the tough spot of having to pick sides.

As for the rules makers, the people that make the rules for NFL football don't play the sport so like the USGA or R&A;, there's no vested interest beyond doing what "they" think is best for the sport.

Originally Posted by Stretch

Perhaps we've tortured this analogy enough?

Serious question, if the people who teach golf for a living come out against the rule. And the people who play golf for a living come out against the rule. And the people who make/sell golf clubs for a living come out against the rule. Where does that leave the people who make the rules in their spare time?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

As for the rules makers, the people that makes the rules for NFL football don't play the sport so like the USGA or R&A;, there's no vested interest beyond doing what "they" think is best for the sport.

Good point.  The other thing that is vastly different between sports is that there really isn't one solitary governing body for sports like football.  The NFL makes changes to their rules and does not have to consider the interests of anybody else.  (I'm not counting the fans as anybody else, because obviously, the fans are part of their interests)  College does the same, as does high school.

Many people talk about one of the beauties of golf being that it's a game with one set of rules played by all ages and abilities everywhere.  No football analogies, basketball analogies, or the like will ever compare fairly because the effects of the rules aren't very far-reaching.