Fitzpatrick cracked driver ruling a disgrace...

[ronsc1985]

43 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I respect your opinions more than 99% of other posters but how would you word such a rule so that it is more easily decided by officials on the spot whether or not a driver is fit for play.

 

I've had drivers with some ugly-looking faces and scratches. If I can't see the separation of the metal, how would I decide ?

 

I'm assuming here, equipment to measure CT/COR isn't portable enough to be on hand - or is it ?

 

Is there a test that can easily be performed on the spot to detect such a crack ? And would the crack have to be on the face ? What if a weld started to separate, so slightly as to not be visually noticeable ? 

 

Is it feasible to do some sort of water test ? Take the head off, pour water into the hosel and see if any leaks out ?

 

I'm expect the ruling bodies did plenty of "what if" thinking before making the rule the way it is - but even they make mistakes.

I've cracked a few heads over the years and it's obvious when it it cracked just by looking at it with a magnifying glass.  If that doesn't do it for you then there are numerous other crack detection methods available in the metal working industry which could easily be done. 

 

BTW a crack does not necessarily decrease the COR. I had one head which I only looked at for cracks because it didn't sound right when hitting. The club actually picked up some distance after the crack/sound change..

 

Cracked faces in drivers were quite common when hollow heads with thin faces were first introduced.  At first the faces were butt welded to the shell which put the weld into shear when hitting a ball. Later on cup face construction put the weld into compression which is stronger. Part of the problem was poor welding gas shielding during manufacturing which better quality control pretty much fixed.

 

As they say finding cracks isn't rocket science although it may seem like it to non technical people.

[Rapidcat]

6 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

There would have to be visible damage.

 

So, for a player to cheat, they would need to willfully damage the club, like scratch a wedge it with a substance harder than stainless steel with enough force to cause damage. 
 

Or put a crack in a driver with like a little hammer 🔨 🤣

 

And if a player is willing to do that, cheating on this particular rule is the least worry lol 

 

Most of the players these days are wealthy enough to carry a nice, sharp diamond in their pocket

[Yacho]

14 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Ouch. "Reductio ad absurdum" running rampant lately.

 

The easiest rebuttal to those "other sports" is that their equipment breaks ALL THE TIME. Without replacing them there is no sport.

 

The golfer has 14 clubs. How often do ANY of them break ? A: not very.

 

 

"Switch out at will" ? 

 

And can you imagine players swapping out wedges with different bounce angles for different shots ? Or swapping one putter for another when he starts off poorly ?

 

Would the caddy die from exhaustion carrying 28 clubs ? And if he dies, can the widow sue the Tour ? Or the player ? Or the course ?

 

Does the word "chaos" ring a bell ? 

 

Can't wait. 😄

[sui generis]

18 minutes ago, Yacho said:

I also think most here are searching for reasons as to why the rule exists, worded as it is, and should remain unamended in the current state of the game.

 

I cannot say why the Rule is written as such. It was discussed at the last PGA/USGA Rules Workshop I attended and didn't seem controversial at the time.

 

As some of us know, the Rules are very evolutionary. The Joint Rules Committee works all the time to prepare for the next revision. They will likely take notice of this event and look to see if any changes need to be made. (Mollycoddled millionaires yelling on TV doesn't necessarily convince anyone of anything.)

 

I've been a referee for quite some time and I'll confess that I don't want to be asked to rule on a possibly damaged composite clubhead. (That's why we have a radio, but I'd bet the official-in-charge doesn't want that call either.) Who wants to deal with a damage claim based on "my last shot with this club was lousy"? 😉

[Yacho]

4 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

I cannot say why the Rule is written as such. It was discussed at the last PGA/USGA Rules Workshop I attended and didn't seem controversial at the time.

 

As some of us know, the Rules are very evolutionary. The Joint Rules Committee works all the time to prepare for the next revision. They will likely take notice of this event and look to see if any changes need to be made. (Mollycoddled millionaires yelling on TV doesn't necessarily convince anyone of anything.)

 

I've been a referee for quite some time and I'll confess that I don't want to be asked to rule on a possibly damaged composite clubhead. (That's why we have a radio, but I'd bet the official-in-charge doesn't want that call either.) Who wants to deal with a damage claim based on "my last shot with this club was lousy"? 😉

 

True.  And I'm not jealous of the referees in situations like this, that's for sure.  😬

 

To me it comes down to the lesser of two evils then, and you have to pick one.

 

Would you rather the possibility of a player gaining an advantage, mental or otherwise, due to a regulated mid-round equipment change? Or would you rather a player gain an advantage because his opponent's equipment has undergone material failure, leaving said opponent ineffective at achieving what we consider a professional level of play?

 

Which show are you gonna buy tickets to?

[nsxguy]

Just now, Yacho said:

 

Can't wait. 😄

 

I suspect you'll have to.  

[andor]

I'd go with if any equipment breaks then tough luck. Putter head falls off? Use a wedge. Golf is full of challenges, both fair and unfair.

 

If a player's equipment fails, it shines the light on the manufacture. In the interest of rolling back distance, inability to replace a cracked driver because of the ultra thin face design might be a good thing...

 

(Of course until I fall foul of the rule, then it'd be toys out the pram.)

 

Edited August 26, 2024 by andor

[Shilgy]

3 minutes ago, andor said:

I'd go with if any equipment breaks then tough luck. Putter head falls off? Use a wedge. Golf is full of challenges, both fair and unfair.

 

If a player's equipment fails, it shines the light on the manufacture. In the interest of rolling back distance, inability to replace a cracked driver because of the ultra thin face design might be a good thing...

 

(Of course until I fall foul of the rule, then it'd be toys out the pram.)

 

You’re not from ‘round these parts are ya?🤣

 

I had to look at your signature to be positive but the “toys out the pram” bit was so clearly not ‘Merican.  Here in the colonies we don’t use that phrase.🙄. 

[andor]

17 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You’re not from ‘round these parts are ya?🤣

 

I had to look at your signature to be positive but the “toys out the pram” bit was so clearly not ‘Merican.  Here in the colonies we don’t use that phrase.🙄. 

 

Apologies Governor. Toys out the stroller.

[PedronNiall]

Certainly will be reviewed after this. Imagine if the same happened to Bradley, Scott, Åberg, and others who were still in contention coming down the stretch and suddenly Scott, for instance, is losing 20 yards off every tee to Bradley instead of beating him by 10 or so. Or imagine any of the players who were on the bubble yesterday but receiving more coverage suddenly losing visible yardage of tees, and clearly being disadvantaged on scoring holes, then missing the championship by a stroke in front of the crowd, in front of a few million viewers, and on every replay on social media from now until next season starts. 

 

Clearly the rule was not written with malice, but yesterday demonstrates that it needs to be updated. There was also clear wiggle room given that officials can make a ruling and in this case I don't think any of the playing competitors or fans would have found a ruling in Fitzpatrick's favor to be wrong. 

 

A number of people in the thread have pointed out that visual inspection alone is not enough to determine the effect of damage on club performance. Given that, if there is visible damage, players should be able to switch out a damaged club for another of reasonably similar spec, i.e., they shouldn't be ineligible simply because the Tour Van only has 9° heads and they have a 10°.

 

Even the thinnest faces most prone to failure aren't giving out after a handful of hits, so not like this is going to be abused to get a new thinner-than-gauze hot face in play off every other tee. 

[Yacho]

Previous post removed for bad math.

 

If nobody leaped him from the bottom 20 heading into the BMW, Fitzy needed to place 25th to make the championship.

 

He ended up t28

Edited August 26, 2024 by Yacho
Math is hard

[Nickb333]

1 hour ago, Yacho said:

Fitzpatrick needed to place 25th or higher to make the championship. 

 

He finished T28.

 

Minimum payout for the East Lake 30 is like half a $mil.

 

Oops. 😬 

Edited August 26, 2024 by Nickb333
Info update

[Yacho]

Sorry. Bad math...

 

That would have been if nobody else behind him made a move up the standings.

 

As it finished out, he would have needed 6th or so

[Nickb333]

Maybe a show of hands from everyone supporting this decision. 
 

How many of you would purchase a driver with a cracked face and game it for your club championship? My bet is zero. 

[Shakespeare]

Meanwhile...behind the scenes...officials were counting how many questionable drops throughout the year he took advantage of.....maybe 5 or under he gets the driver replaced...5 to 10 its a coin flip...over 10 they are laughing...im just causing trouble...ill see myself out

[Ferguson]

6 hours ago, SlothofDespond said:

Yes, except, rules could be changed so they're not arbitrary nonsense. I'm glad to see stuff like this though. It erodes any sort of respect for the sanctity of USGA rules. Keep chipping away and someday the mighty will 

 

 The rules are not nonsense.  Sometimes they work in a player's favor. 

 

If it was Patrick Reed, Stewart Cink and not Fitz, the club would have been "fully playable."

 

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, Nickb333 said:

Maybe a show of hands from everyone supporting this decision. 
 

How many of you would purchase a driver with a cracked face and game it for your club championship? My bet is zero. 

Well, you cannot, while playing a hole, replace a ball because it’s badly scuffed.  It must be visibly cut or cracked.  But I wouldn’t purchase that scuffed ball either.  
 

Which is beside the point anyways.  Based on the MLR the tour uses the office had to deny replacement.  If you wish to blame the tour for using that MLR that’s valid.  But you cannot blame the official for following the rules.

[PedronNiall]

Player: "My ball is damaged and needs to be replaced."

 

Competitor: "I concur, your ball is damaged."

 

Rules of Golf allows this because it is accepted that golf is a game of honor and both the affected player and his fellow competitors will conduct themselves honorably. If that is still the case then there's no reason officials should be needed to decide if a damaged club can be taken out of play and replaced, is there? 

[Nickb333]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Well, you cannot, while playing a hole, replace a ball because it’s badly scuffed.  It must be visibly cut or cracked.  But I wouldn’t purchase that scuffed ball either.  
 

Which is beside the point anyways.  Based on the MLR the tour uses the office had to deny replacement.  If you wish to blame the tour for using that MLR that’s valid.  But you cannot blame the official for following the rules.

But that rule is based upon discretion of opinion or opinions. That’s the point. No one in their right mind would put a cracked club in play. Why? Because a crack in a modern club isn’t cosmetic. It’s the death of the club. Any reasonable opinion says a cracked face on a modern driver is serious. 
 

Combine the obvious crack with the obvious crap results and the players statement, the club is in fact seriously damaged. We are no longer discussing a crack “in and of itself “. Plenty of evidence to support serious damage other than the crack. This is why the ridiculous ruling was ridiculous. 
 

The crickets to my previous question say it all IMO. No one would buy Fitzpatricks cracked driver and game it for any important match. No one. 

 

[sui generis]

22 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

Player: "My ball is damaged and needs to be replaced."

 

Competitor: "I concur, your ball is damaged."

 

Rules of Golf allows this because it is accepted that golf is a game of honor and both the affected player and his fellow competitors will conduct themselves honorably. If that is still the case then there's no reason officials should be needed to decide if a damaged club can be taken out of play and replaced, is there? 

 

I don't think so. While there's some latitude in match play, TV golf doesn't work like that.

[sui generis]

10 minutes ago, Nickb333 said:

 

The crickets to my previous question say it all IMO.

 

The "crickets" suggest that those here who appreciate the Rules, that a reply would be a fool's errand. 😉

[Shilgy]

20 minutes ago, Nickb333 said:

But that rule is based upon discretion of opinion or opinions. That’s the point. No one in their right mind would put a cracked club in play. Why? Because a crack in a modern club isn’t cosmetic. It’s the death of the club. Any reasonable opinion says a cracked face on a modern driver is serious. 
 

Combine the obvious crack with the obvious crap results and the players statement, the club is in fact seriously damaged. We are no longer discussing a crack “in and of itself “. Plenty of evidence to support serious damage other than the crack. This is why the ridiculous ruling was ridiculous. 
 

The crickets to my previous question say it all IMO. No one would buy Fitzpatricks cracked driver and game it for any important match. No one. 

 

What crickets?🤣 You just replied to my reply of your question.😎 

For whatever reason the PGA Tour decided to go with the more stringent MLR.  No one here can tell you why so you’re asking the wrong crowd.

[Hawkeye77]

4 hours ago, Nickb333 said:

Maybe a show of hands from everyone supporting this decision. 
 

How many of you would purchase a driver with a cracked face and game it for your club championship? My bet is zero. 

Fitzpatrick bought a driver with a cracked face? 

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, PedronNiall said:

Player: "My ball is damaged and needs to be replaced."

 

Competitor: "I concur, your ball is damaged."

 

Rules of Golf allows this because it is accepted that golf is a game of honor and both the affected player and his fellow competitors will conduct themselves honorably. If that is still the case then there's no reason officials should be needed to decide if a damaged club can be taken out of play and replaced, is there? 

Seve says there is a Ryder Cup you may have missed back in the day, lol.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Hawkeye77

[bcjim]

15 minutes ago, Nickb333 said:

But that rule is based upon discretion of opinion or opinions. That’s the point. No one in their right mind would put a cracked club in play. Why? Because a crack in a modern club isn’t cosmetic. It’s the death of the club. Any reasonable opinion says a cracked face on a modern driver is serious. 
 

Combine the obvious crack with the obvious crap results and the players statement, the club is in fact seriously damaged. We are no longer discussing a crack “in and of itself “. Plenty of evidence to support serious damage other than the crack. This is why the ridiculous ruling was ridiculous. 
 

The crickets to my previous question say it all IMO. No one would buy Fitzpatricks cracked driver and game it for any important match. No one. 

 

 

 

A 289y drive (in the rough, probably otherwise longer) by a short knocker is not evidence of anything.  Especially when likely not witnessed. Even if witnessed,  how could a rules official determine that it wasn't simply a poor strike?  And the MLR is quite specific:

 

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

• The clubhead is visibly and significantly deformed (but not when the clubhead is only cracked)

 

[Nickb333]

Hmm. I was raised to believe golf was a game built around integrity. There are plenty, probably dozens of examples where rules officials ask a player what happened. With no contradictory evidence the players word is accepted as true and correct. 
 

In this instance, despite actual evidence that the driver is broken, which includes a crack in the face and a subsequent 3 iron like drive, the players word is dismissed. Wonderful. 

[Nickb333]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Well, you cannot, while playing a hole, replace a ball because it’s badly scuffed.  It must be visibly cut or cracked.  But I wouldn’t purchase that scuffed ball either.  
 

Which is beside the point anyways.  Based on the MLR the tour uses the office had to deny replacement.  If you wish to blame the tour for using that MLR that’s valid.  But you cannot blame the official for following the rules.

[Nickb333]

Just now, Nickb333 said:

Cracked or scuffed? Pretty sure this ball is unplayable. Pretty sure it’s not possible to crack most decent modern balls. This is the ball I pounded into the side of a bunker when my watch asked if I’d been in an accident. 
 

Old rules need to be updated to match modern equipment. 

[bcjim]

Nobody is against rewriting the rule. But the guy at Castle Pines had to apply the rules that are currently on the books. 

[Shilgy]

26 minutes ago, Nickb333 said:

Finish the hole with it and then throw it out.  That would be considered scuffed.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Shilgy