Rule 4-3, Damaged clubs: Repair and Replacement

[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