Matt Kuchar Ruling at Barclays

[ColonelMac]

In watching the telecast on Sunday, the need to simplify the rules was again highlighted.

Kuchar's ball was just off the putting surface, but he elected to putt as he was within 15 feet of the hole. There was some sort of damage on his intended line. According to David Feherty, the damage was made by someone's putter. Initially. Slugger White judged it to be "normal" damage, in the same way as spike marks are judged, and NOT repairable.

Upon being pressed by Kuchar, White then radioed the Committee. It was then apparently ruled to be "abnormal" damage that could, in fact, be repaired. White made the repair and the match resumed.

Having served in the military for almost 30 years, I participated in more "rules and regulation" making sessions than I care to count. The entire purpose of rules is to provide clear guidance and to eliminate, as much as possible, subjectivity. But, those rules also must be grounded in logical rationale and serve a useful purpose.

If the course is to be played as you find it, then either ALL damage should be repairable or NO damage should be. I made this same point in another thread a week ago to which there's been no response.

http://simplegolfrules.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=58

Either that's because everyone agrees with the current contradictions in the rule and believe it's not worthy of reply. Is there still anyone around who participated in the 1952 rule change that finally got rid of Stymies? When were ball marks judged to be "good" damage and, therefore, repairable? Why? And, why when THAT was decided was it also decided that such things as spike marks are "bad" damage and NOT repairable. What useful purpose did/does that serve?

At this point, I doubt anyone really knows.