Rule 4-3, Damaged clubs: Repair and Replacement

[Johanna]

Despite the heading of Rule 4-3, nothing is said in 4-3a and b about repair and replacement.
Your Rule 4-3a allows the player to continue play with the damaged club but 4-3b forbids such. Why the keep the difference as in the present Rules? Would it not be simpler to allow play with the damaged club in both a) and b) circumstances, but only allow replacement when a club is accidentally damaged as in 4-3a?

[John Morrissett]

Johanna -

First, good catch with the title to Rule 4-3. That should be revised. Thank you.

The difference between Rule 4-3a and 4-3b lies with whether the damage occurs during the normal course of play. If it did, the player may continue to use the damaged club (but without repairing or replacing it); if the damage occurred other than in the normal course of play, the player may not use the club again.

With the idea not to allow the repair or replacement of a club damaged in the normal course of play, David and I were persuaded by the following points:
(1) The player is permitted to start his round with 14 clubs (a generous number), so the player has plenty of other clubs to use;
(2) The damage of a club in such circumstances is rare (and we were trying to get away from letting rare occurrences cloud the Rules);
(3) Often a club will become damaged in the normal course of play when a player attempts a shot from an awkward lie (e.g., near a tree), and this change would encourage the player to consider the potential damage to the club as part of the risk when deciding whether to attempt that stroke. (We do acknowledge that sometimes clubs are damaged away from such situations, such as with a driver on the teeing ground.)

Why do you think a player who damages a club other than in the normal course of play should be allowed to continue to use it? My concern is that doing so would in some cases encourage people to damage their clubs to change the playing characteristics (not a desirable result, in my opinion). True, the distinction between Rules 4-3a and 4-3b creates inconsistent treatment and gets away from simplicity, but we think that distinction is too important philosophically to ignore.

Best regards,
John

[Johanna]

(08-19-2013 12:07 PM)John Morrissett Wrote:  Johanna -

First, good catch with the title to Rule 4-3. That should be revised. Thank you.

The difference between Rule 4-3a and 4-3b lies with whether the damage occurs during the normal course of play. If it did, the player may continue to use the damaged club (but without repairing or replacing it); if the damage occurred other than in the normal course of play, the player may not use the club again.

With the idea not to allow the repair or replacement of a club damaged in the normal course of play, David and I were persuaded by the following points:
(1) The player is permitted to start his round with 14 clubs (a generous number), so the player has plenty of other clubs to use;
(2) The damage of a club in such circumstances is rare (and we were trying to get away from letting rare occurrences cloud the Rules);
(3) Often a club will become damaged in the normal course of play when a player attempts a shot from an awkward lie (e.g., near a tree), and this change would encourage the player to consider the potential damage to the club as part of the risk when deciding whether to attempt that stroke. (We do acknowledge that sometimes clubs are damaged away from such situations, such as with a driver on the teeing ground.)

Why do you think a player who damages a club other than in the normal course of play should be allowed to continue to use it? My concern is that doing so would in some cases encourage people to damage their clubs to change the playing characteristics (not a desirable result, in my opinion). True, the distinction between Rules 4-3a and 4-3b creates inconsistent treatment and gets away from simplicity, but we think that distinction is too important philosophically to ignore.

Best regards,
John

John, Thank you for your reply. Yesterday and the day before I was referee at a youth tournament and something unfortunate happened.
The girl who was in the lead (and would have won) the 36 holes stroke play competition had a bad putt on the 17th hole. In frustration she slammed her putter hard against the heel of her shoe. As a result her putter was bent. She commented about the bent, but then used her putter again to putt on the final hole, which she parred.
All this was reported to the Committee and after hearing all the players involved (marker and 3rd player), the girl (15 years old) was eventually DQ'd.
If somehow her putter had been bent during normal play, she would not have been DQ'd. Surely slamming a club in frustration cannot change the characteristics of the club to any desired effect, methinks.
So why not forgive the player playing with the damaged club, excepts she's not allowed to replace the club?

A very good tournament was somewhat spoiled by this unfortunate incident.

Best wishes,
Johanna

[John Morrissett]

Johanna -

That is certainly a tough situation - as extreme and unfortunate as possible. I once had to tell a player in a collegiate event that he was disqualified for the same reason, and, in those particular facts, could not help but wonder if the punishment fit the crime. However, as there is not a clear and defensible place to draw a line elsewhere for a different conclusion, I resigned myself to the position that the answer is necessary, no matter how harsh it may seem occasionally. For example, if a player slammed her sand wedge against a cart path in anger and in so doing changed the lie or loft of the club (which could be a benefit), we would likely be more uncomfortable with allowing her to continue to use that altered club.

Part of my concern with allowing a player to use a club that was damaged other than in the normal course of play is that doing so would undermine the prohibition against purposely changing a club's playing characteristics. I do not mind (in fact, I like) the notion of players' needing to be careful with their clubs. In your case, for example, the player was not guilt-free (no matter how much we feel for her); she did two things she should not have done - bent the putter shaft and then used the bent putter. The Rules are somewhat kind in that they do not provide for a penalty for unintentionally changing a club's playing characteristics (so she had the opportunity to avoid a penalty after she bent the shaft).

Best regards,
John

[aaa]

Whilst having some sympathy for the young lady in Johanna's tournament, I would be more concerned that a change would remove a significant disincentive to young (and old for that matter) players from poor behaviour. Throwing or slamming clubs must be discouraged. An etiquette penalty is too remote (a single incident on the 17th would not incur a penalty). There must be an immediate consequence. Taking the club out of play fits the bill.

[Johanna]

(08-19-2013 03:36 PM)aaa Wrote:  Whilst having some sympathy for the young lady in Johanna's tournament, I would be more concerned that a change would remove a significant disincentive to young (and old for that matter) players from poor behaviour. Throwing or slamming clubs must be discouraged. An etiquette penalty is too remote (a single incident on the 17th would not incur a penalty). There must be an immediate consequence. Taking the club out of play fits the bill.

I agree with you John and AAA, but it is not easy to make a DQ Decision. The father of the girl was something else ....... wish there was a Rule for that. At one time we expected to be assaulted with the bent putter !