On the eve of the PGA, it's the rules of golf that are getting plenty of attention between Lytham and Ohio (oh, and add Oregon after you read Jim Achenbach's story from Pumpkin Ridge).
Michelle Wie's latest rules infraction probably cost her caddy his job. GeorgeM asks:
"1. Is the the players (pro and amateur) who are neglectful?
2. Is it the coaches and instructors who do not emphasize the rules before the swing?
3. Or is it the rule makers who fail to provide an easily accessible guide to the rules?
I see many rules questions posted on boards by veteran golfers. Why don't we know the answers ourselves?"
CBell chimes in with this point: "As a high school teacher I'd like to say that Michelle is refreshingly normal. She's far ahead of some 16-year-olds in terms of poise and ability to articulate, far behind others. My bigger point is this: the difference between most 16-year-olds and 18-year-olds is huge. Be fair to Michelle. Give her time. As for the rules, she hasn't yet learned NEVER to make assumptions. Call an official. But when you don't know what you don't know - typical of any 16-year-old, let alone someone "expected" to know the minutiae of an arcane set of guidelines - it's easy to make mistakes.
And RM cited that great thinker, Clark Griswold, "Nothing worthwile is easy honey, we know that."
After the round, Tiger was asked some pretty lame questions and I had fun with it. The exchange prompted Hawkeye to write, "Seems to me even the press chokes when Tiger is on the leader board..."
Golf World ran a photo of the Ohio Golf Association's shorter ball that will be used at their Champions Tournament August 22-23. Some of us would love to know what it is, but JPB makes a good point about why the manufacturer may want it to be a secret: "The problem is that if the word gets out the ball is shorter in a range of swing speeds, it will be off the market. You can't have a regular ball survive a short hitting reputation IMO. The only way it really works is if the companies put out a retro special or something and market it as a classic course high spin ball."
Scott S asked, "Any word on who made the ball Jack wants us to hit yet?" I think it's safe to say that it's not the same manufacturer cooperating with the Ohio Golf Association.
Ned Ludd said it "Looks like dimple pattern from Dunlop/Maxfli popular in the late 80's. Remember the Dunlop 'Master?'" While ReverendTMac says it "reminds me more of my favorite ball a couple years back, the Top Flite Tour. Three-piece, low compression, high spin...it all fits. Same mixture of smaller and bigger dimples, too."
Chuck asks up a good question: "I am confused as to how any ball can be 'on the conforming list under [a different] name...' I thought the point of the list was to allow in-the-field identification of conforming balls, and that there could be no such thing as a stealth model, which is marked differently yet still conforming. Perhaps someone with greater familiarity with the ins and outs of the Conforming List can supply the information.
johnniecash responded, "A ball does not have to be on the list of conforming golf balls. A ball only has to meet the requirements for balls as stated in Appendix III of the rulebook. Balls that are on the list have been tested and found to conform, but the list is not deemed to be exclusive, unless a committee wishes to adopt it."