USGA, R&A Limit Green Reading Materials

[Hardspoon]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

I mostly agree John @Hardspoon. I also think they could have almost banned them altogether.

By "banning them", I assume you mean limiting them to the level of detail on the greens contained in general yardage books?

That makes sense, and I think that's what they were trying to move towards.  In my opinion, the goal is to let golfers have basic information about the course that helps them play their shots, but not replace the skill of reading greens for slope to make a putt.  Golfers should be able to have maps that show you a massive ridge, or a green with two tiers, but not with enough info to actually help figure out where to hit a putt.

I think the 4% limit and the scale limit were a decent way to get towards that ideal.

 

Also, this really sucks for the folks that make a living producing these books (Strackaline, etc.).  But...oh, well.  #greatergood

[Vinsk]

https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2018/08/06/an-open-letter-to-the-usga-and-ra-new-green-reading-restrictions-are-a-misguided-mistake/

From Kuchar’s caddie.

[Rulesman]

"My biggest question is this: Has putting improved because of greens-book usage? Has rolling in 15-footers become so easy as to make that skill less relevant to being successful on Tour? Not a chance. "

Why is he objecting to the change then?

 

[DeadMan]

I don't even know where to begin with that. It's a bunch of bad arguments and contradictory thoughts. This probably should have been edited a little better.

[Vinsk]

39 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I don't even know where to begin with that. It's a bunch of bad arguments and contradictory thoughts. This probably should have been edited a little better.

That was my overall take as well. Along with what @Rulesman said. The article mentions Day as being #1 in SG putting and then says he doesn’t use a GRB. I don’t think Wood really read this carefully before having it submitted. It seems more like a poorly constructed rant.

[Fourputt]

I don't think that the caddie spending, as the article says, "hours" making up detailed green reading charts reflects on the skill of the player, and that is what should be measured in a competition.  This is just a caddie blowing a fuse, likely because he has put in those hours and now feels he has wasted all that time.  I can understand some frustration, but he has taken it farther than it needs to be.  Lodge your objection and move on.  

I'm 100% in favor of this rule.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

"My biggest question is this: Has putting improved because of greens-book usage? Has rolling in 15-footers become so easy as to make that skill less relevant to being successful on Tour? Not a chance. "

Why is he objecting to the change then?

 

16 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

The article mentions Day as being #1 in SG putting and then says he doesn’t use a GRB.

The way I interpreted it, I think he references those facts as a means to help explain that he feels the books dont give players an advantage over one another, so there isnt any harm in keeping them. 

If you think about it, it does make sense (to me at least). Jason Day is #1 in SG putting because he is a more skilled putter than other people on tour, not because he has a better or more accurate green reading book than other players, so what's the harm in players using them?

Not saying I agree or disagree with him, I'm indifferent, I've never used a green reading book and I probably never will so it doesnt really matter one way or the other to me, but based on what I read, I think I understand why he used the examples that he did

Edited August 7, 2018 by klineka

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

The way I interpreted it, I think he references those facts as a means to help explain that he feels the books dont give players an advantage over one another, so there isnt any harm in keeping them. 

That's not why the USGA and R&A changed this rule. From the USGA's announcement (http://www.usga.org/articles/2018/07/usga--the-r-a-green-reading-materials-rules-of-golf.html):

Quote

The USGA and The R&A are proposing regulations regarding the use of green-reading materials, reaffirming the need for a player to read greens based on their own judgment, skill and ability.

Following a six-week period of feedback and consultation with interested parties that begins today, the regulations will be finalized in a published “interpretation” of Rule 4.3 (Use of Equipment) and adopted Jan. 1, 2019, when golf’s new rules take effect.

“Both the USGA and The R&A are committed to the position that a player’s ability to read their line of play on the putting green is an essential skill that should be retained,” said Thomas Pagel, Senior Director, Rules of Golf and Amateur Status for the USGA. “The focus of the interpretation is to develop an approach that is both effective and enforceable.”

David Rickman, Executive Director – Governance at The R&A, said, “We have looked carefully at the use of these green-reading materials and the extremely detailed information they provide and our view is that they tip the balance too far away from the essential skill and judgment required to read subtle slopes on the greens. It is important to be clear, however, that we still regard the use of yardage books and handwritten notes to be an entirely appropriate part of the game.”  

The USGA and R&A feel that green reading is a skill that is essential to golf, and the books take that skill out of the game. It's not really relevant that the books do or do not help people be better putters.

Edited August 7, 2018 by DeadMan

[klineka]

7 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

It's because the USGA and R&A think that the skill of reading the greens is an essential element of the game of golf, and the books took that skill out of golf. It's not because the books do or do not give someone an advantage.

That makes sense.

I thought the caddie brought up an interesting point about enforcement of the rule. Seems like the easiest and most fair way to enforce this to me would have a rules official just check each players' book before each round. Or do a random sample of X number of players and check for compliance, similar to how the R&A did with drivers before The Open this year.

[saevel25]

Just have the yardage books submitted when signing a scorecard. If they violate the rules, the player is DQ'd

[DaveP043]

54 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Just have the yardage books submitted when signing a scorecard. If they violate the rules, the player is DQ'd

Or on the first tee.  If the book violates the rule, confiscate it, let the player go on without any written notes.

[SG11118]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

 

The USGA and R&A feel that green reading is a skill that is essential to golf, and the books take that skill out of the game. It's not really relevant that the books do or do not help people be better putters.

Is it the skill of the player or the skill of the player + caddie?  Does anyone think that in 30-40 years that the caddy may get phased out of the game?

[Shindig]

20 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Is it the skill of the player or the skill of the player + caddie?  Does anyone think that in 30-40 years that the caddy may get phased out of the game?

I don't see caddies leaving the professional game, but they're largely out of the amateur game (aside from top-level amateur competitions).

[iacas]

Quote

Your own statement says that the new rule is meant to reaffirm “the need for a player to read greens based on their own judgement, skill, and ability.” I would agree there is a skill to reading greens, with all their idiosyncrasies and imperceptible slopes. But there is also a skill to properly employing greens books — yes, it’s a different kind of skill than, say, hitting a flop shot or a bump-and-run, but it’s a skill nonetheless.

Uhhhhh, reading a chart in a book is not like hitting a bump and run or a flop shot.

Quote

We caddies thrive on trying to gain a competitive advantage over our counterparts. If you restrict greens books, hard-working loopers like Mark Fulcher (Justin Rose), John McLaren (Paul Casey), Michael Greller (Jordan Spieth) and Joe Skovron (Rickie Fowler), among dozens of others, will still be better caddies than most, but by not allowing them to track certain information — no matter how they come about it — you’ll be leveling the playing field and removing a huge incentive for caddies to strive to be better.

This one is just laughable.

I would argue that a caddie can better separate himself from his peers by, I dunno, being good at reading greens.

Quote

The final word goes to Mark Broadie, the pro game’s preeminent statistician, who recently offered this opinion: “Even if there were small [improvements] in putting, with the current data it would be impossible to attribute changes to a player’s putting skill, green-reading books, or green conditions.”

They are banning them for two reasons:

• They view them as de-skilling (or changing the skill) necessary to read a putt.
• They know that they look bad and slow down play.

It's that simple, Kuchar's caddie.

[Fourputt]

17 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Is it the skill of the player or the skill of the player + caddie?  Does anyone think that in 30-40 years that the caddy may get phased out of the game?

It's the skill of reading a green, regardless of whether they both work it out together.  The books are created using tools which are not allowed under the rules.  They also then record information which is not considered as public knowledge"under the rules", such as the amount of slope as measured with a protractor and level, etc.  While this still requires the player to strike the putt, it still takes something away from the necessity of reading the green as he plays the hole.  That distinction may be too subtle for Kuchar's caddie to grasp, but I can see it. 

When I see player after player facing 40+ foot snaky putts and regularly getting them within a couple of inches, it raises the suspicion that they have more information to go on than just what they are reading at the time.  It's not the short putts that probably concern the ruling bodies, but more likely those long lag putts which they feel have become too easy.  I don't have any info, but I wonder if the stats on 3-putts have changed over the last 10-15 years enough to cause this concern.

[klineka]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I don't have any info, but I wonder if the stats on 3-putts have changed over the last 10-15 years enough to cause this concern.

I just looked at some numbers from the PGA tour stats website, and I created a graph showing the average number of 3 putts per round on the PGA tour from 2008 through this 2018 so far. There obviously has been a decrease, not sure how significant of a decrease that graph represents.

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.400.html

Edited August 8, 2018 by klineka

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Fourputt said:

When I see player after player facing 40+ foot snaky putts and regularly getting them within a couple of inches, it raises the suspicion that they have more information to go on than just what they are reading at the time.  It's not the short putts that probably concern the ruling bodies, but more likely those long lag putts which they feel have become too easy.  I don't have any info, but I wonder if the stats on 3-putts have changed over the last 10-15 years enough to cause this concern.

Strokes gained putting stats haven’t improved since the green charts have been made available.

[iacas]

The final bit is out…

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2018/10/usga-r-a-finalize-limits-on-green-reading-materials-in-golf.html

Golfers may continue to use a putting-green map or other putting-green information, except that:

• Any image of a putting green must be limited to a scale of 3/8 inch to 5 yards (1:480) or smaller (the “scale limit”).
• Any book or other paper containing a map or image of a putting green must not be larger than 4 ¼ inches x 7 inches (the “size limit”), although a “hole location sheet” that displays nine or more holes on a single sheet of paper may be larger, provided that any image of a single putting green meets the scale limit.
• No magnification of putting-green information is allowed other than a player’s normal wearing of prescription glasses or lenses.
• Hand-drawn or written information about a putting green is only allowed if contained in a book or paper meeting the size limit and written by the player and/or his or her caddie.

The final interpretation also clearly defines that any use of electronic or digital putting-green maps must comply with the same limits. A player is still in breach of Rule 4.3 if the player uses any device not consistent with the purpose of the limits, including:

• Increasing the size of the green’s representation beyond the scale or size limits.
• Producing a recommended line of play based on the location (or estimated location) of the player’s ball (see Rule 4.3a(1)).

What changed?

Some of the changes made to the original proposal following the feedback period include the removal of: (1) the proposed minimum slope indication limit of 4% and (2) the prohibition against using handwritten notes to create a copy or facsimile of a detailed green map.

Additions to the original proposal include: (1) a new size limit for the printed book/material (restricted to pocket-size), (2) a new prohibition against magnification of putting green information and (3) a new requirement that that any hand-drawn or written information must be in a book or on a paper meeting the size limit and must be written by the player and/or his or her caddie.

Okay.