U.S. Golf Association vice president Thomas O’Toole announced Monday that the USGA is looking at that most extraordinary of actions, a rules change that would take effect in 2012. Golfer Webb Simpson was penalized one stroke at Sunday’s Zurich Classic in New Orleans when a gust of wind moved his ball after he lined up for a shot—an action that mandates a one-stroke penalty according to the arcane rules of the sport, and one that likely cost Watson a Classic title. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, it should be only the prelude to a major change made by the Royal & Ancient—the governing body of golf—in its sport’s rigid, obsolete rulebook.
Here’s this weekend’s situation: Simpson was about a foot from the 15th hole and led by one stroke when he addressed his ball—that is, lined up to hit it. While Simpson was preparing to hit the ball, the wind picked up and moved the ball, causing Simpson to incur a one-stroke penalty. (Rule 18-2b reads in part: “If a player’s ball in play moves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke.” Simpson would go on to finish, tied with Bubba Watson after 72 holes, and then lose to Watson in a playoff. The proposed rule change would declare that “if it was known or virtually certain that the player did not cause that ball to move, then [the penalty] does not apply.”
But Simpson isn’t the only one to be burned by the sport’s rules. Earlier this year, Padraig Harrington was disqualified prior to the start of the second round of the Abu Dhabi Golf Championship after a television viewer called in a rules violation committed by Harrington after he had signed his scorecard. As Harrington replaced his ball on the seventh green, his hand brushed the ball, which moved the length of a dimple and a half as a consequence. After viewing the tape “about 60 times,” according to The Masters website, rules official Andy McFee determined that the ball had moved, and Harrington was disqualified the following morning for signing an incorrect scorecard. Under the new rule, a player is not disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard if there were facts he did not know and could not have determined—rather, the appropriate penalty would simply be assessed.
However, a player who was not aware of the rules would still be disqualified. And it’s here that the Royal & Ancient needs to change its stance.
Normally, it’s easy to take a side against an athlete who does not know the rules of his/her sport. But in the case of golf, a sport that, by its nature, needs a rulebook that is roughly the size and weight of a baby hippopotamus, some flexibility is in order.
During this year’s Hyundai Tournament of Champions, Camilo Villegas chipped uphill on the 15th hole, but the ball rolled back down to him. As the ball was rolling down, Villegas swatted at some grass above his divot—so according to the rulebook, Villegas should have been given a two-stroke penalty for removing a loose impediment that might have influenced the movement of the ball. After being contacted by another viewer, tournament organizers disqualified Villegas for signing an incorrect scorecard that did not include the two-stroke penalty. Said USGA Executive Director Mike Davis, “In the Camilo Villegas thing, the [Royal & Ancient] and the USGA feel strongly that one of the pillars of the game…is knowing the rules, playing by the rules.”
Well, it’s hard to see anything wrong with requiring golfers to play by the rules of their sport, but considering there are more golf rules than lines in a five-act Shakespeare play, why are the golf czars so adamant that their golfers be prepared to address the possible rules ramifications of every single action?
Ignorance of rules happens plenty of times in every sport—it’s not at all uncommon to hear coaches asking officials for a clarification on, say, substitution rules, or for officials to reverse an action that was against the rules (such as requiring a basketball player to leave the court because he did not report to the table during the first 20 seconds of a timeout). Is the other team immediately awarded a forfeit in such cases? No, the officials explain their reasoning and the game continues as normal. Why is the USGA so adamant that such actions not take place in its game?
It is certainly easy to understand the perspectives of the USGA and Royal & Ancient on this issue. But by continuing to adhere to its belief that every player must have the entire rulebook in his memory banks next to his anniversary and his children’s birthdays, the sport’s governing bodies are doing a far bigger disservice to the sport than an incorrect scorecard.
Cohen is a member of the class of 2010 and Sports Editor Emeritus.
Leave a Reply