Can a well worn golf grip become illegal?

[King_Slender]

I am aware of the rules around grips and what makes them illegal when manufactured, but can a grip become illegal over time from simple wear and tear?

 

For example, I've seen a buddy who has never changed his driver grip in 10 years and where his thumb sits has actually work a groove/dimple into the grip, acting as an alignment aid.

 

Ignoring that a slick 10 year old grip has disadvantages, does that work in dimple make it illegal?

[nsxguy]

7 minutes ago, King_Slender said:

I am aware of the rules around grips and what makes them illegal when manufactured, but can a grip become illegal over time from simple wear and tear?

 

For example, I've seen a buddy who has never changed his driver grip in 10 years and where his thumb sits has actually work a groove/dimple into the grip, acting as an alignment aid.

 

Ignoring that a slick 10 year old grip has disadvantages, does that work in dimple make it illegal?

 

LOL

 

Had a guy in my old club whose driver grip was almost falling off and he wouldn't change it because it was worn in exactly the right places and told him his grip was correct.

 

Once upon a time I remember I wore out a small place where my left thumb was on the grip. Same-same; told me I was in the right place.

 

As far as I know, so long as the grip is conforming when it was put on, he's good to go.

[Newby]

Clubs Allowed in Making a Stroke

(1) Conforming Clubs. In making a stroke, a player must use a club that conforms to the requirements in the Equipment Rules:

• A club used to make a stroke must conform not only when the club is new, but also when it has been deliberately or accidentally changed in any way.

• But if the performance characteristics of a conforming club change because of wear through normal use, it is still a conforming club.

“Performance characteristics” means any part of the club that affects how it performs in making a stroke, such as its grip, shaft, clubhead or lie or loft (including lie or loft of an adjustable club).

[Halebopp]

The R&A equipment staff told us in TARS last month that a grip worn down to the point of the shaft being visible is no longer conforming. (I do wish it was expressed in the Equipment Rules.)

[Socrates]

2 hours ago, Halebopp said:

The R&A equipment staff told us in TARS last month that a grip worn down to the point of the shaft being visible is no longer conforming. (I do wish it was expressed in the Equipment Rules.)

I do not dispute that this was said.  However, unless they are willing to put that in print, it's just an opinion.   That being said, I would never let a grip get that worn out although I have personally seen that on clubs.

[rogolf]

13 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I do not dispute that this was said.  However, unless they are willing to put that in print, it's just an opinion.   That being said, I would never let a grip get that worn out although I have personally seen that on clubs.

As the R&A are a Ruling Body, I would consider that a ruling, not just an opinion!

[Newby]

12 minutes ago, rogolf said:

As the R&A are a Ruling Body, I would consider that a ruling, not just an opinion!

As it hasn't been published anywhere (even seemingly by the USGA on their facebook site), I would disagree but am checking for confirmation.

Edited Saturday at 09:48 PM by Newby

[Greenie]

6 hours ago, King_Slender said:

I am aware of the rules around grips and what makes them illegal when manufactured, but can a grip become illegal over time from simple wear and tear?

 

For example, I've seen a buddy who has never changed his driver grip in 10 years and where his thumb sits has actually work a groove/dimple into the grip, acting as an alignment aid.

 

Ignoring that a slick 10 year old grip has disadvantages, does that work in dimple make it illegal?

 

Are you talking about one of the guys I play with. I going to say it has been 20 yrs for him. Not only do the grips have finger marks the grips are dry rotted,  crumbling and chucks are falling off. I happened to pull out a hybrid for him and it had mold and green fuzzy stuff on the grip. I broke out laughing and asked him how that happened. He said I guess I haven't used that club in a while. I can't make this stuff up..LOL

[antip]

8 hours ago, Halebopp said:

The R&A equipment staff told us in TARS last month that a grip worn down to the point of the shaft being visible is no longer conforming. (I do wish it was expressed in the Equipment Rules.)

Thanks, that's interesting and does not seem consistent with what the rule says - no 'limit' is placed on normal wear. And the equipment rules don't even require a club to have a grip. 

[Halebopp]

4 hours ago, antip said:

Thanks, that's interesting and does not seem consistent with what the rule says - no 'limit' is placed on normal wear. And the equipment rules don't even require a club to have a grip. 

 

My take is that the ruling bodies don't want moulded grips but there's no easy way to quantify when a grip has worn down too much just by looking at the grip itself. The shaft provides a clear visual checkpoint for this purpose.

[antip]

54 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

My take is that the ruling bodies don't want moulded grips but there's no easy way to quantify when a grip has worn down too much just by looking at the grip itself. The shaft provides a clear visual checkpoint for this purpose.

I don't have any problem with that. But whatever they want should be transparent, not only revealed in a TARS presentation!

[Colin L]

8 hours ago, Greenie said:

 

Are you talking about one of the guys I play with. I going to say it has been 20 yrs for him. Not only do the grips have finger marks the grips are dry rotted,  crumbling and chucks are falling off. I happened to pull out a hybrid for him and it had mold and green fuzzy stuff on the grip. I broke out laughing and asked him how that happened. He said I guess I haven't used that club in a while. I can't make this stuff up..LOL

Sounds as if his bag should have been cordoned off as a threat to the  environment and guys in bio-hazard suits called in to deal with it. 

[AzRoger]

1 hour ago, antip said:

I don't have any problem with that. But whatever they want should be transparent, not only revealed in a TARS presentation!

The rule book isn't meant to cover all possible situations. Not sure if they still update it but the USGA/R&A use to come out with the 'Decision of Rules' book to clarify the rules, it's probably 10X the size of the rules book, an interesting read.

[King_Slender]

12 hours ago, Greenie said:

 

Are you talking about one of the guys I play with. I going to say it has been 20 yrs for him. Not only do the grips have finger marks the grips are dry rotted,  crumbling and chucks are falling off. I happened to pull out a hybrid for him and it had mold and green fuzzy stuff on the grip. I broke out laughing and asked him how that happened. He said I guess I haven't used that club in a while. I can't make this stuff up..LOL

 

LOL - I have a buddy gaming an old Ping Zing 2 putter where the grip has rotted away to the point that there is about 1" if bare, rusty shaft on the butt end.  

 

I have offered every year to replace that grip for him with a new Ping grip, free of charge, and he refuses because he thinks it will mess up his putting. 

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, AzRoger said:

The rule book isn't meant to cover all possible situations. Not sure if they still update it but the USGA/R&A use to come out with the 'Decision of Rules' book to clarify the rules, it's probably 10X the size of the rules book, an interesting read.

The Decisions book has disappeared.  There is now a Rule book, the Official Guide to the Rules of Golf (also includes the Rules) and the Equipment Rules.

[Socrates]

6 hours ago, AzRoger said:

The rule book isn't meant to cover all possible situations. Not sure if they still update it but the USGA/R&A use to come out with the 'Decision of Rules' book to clarify the rules, it's probably 10X the size of the rules book, an interesting read.

 

2 hours ago, rogolf said:

The Decisions book has disappeared.  There is now a Rule book, the Official Guide to the Rules of Golf (also includes the Rules) and the Equipment Rules.

They have just renamed the Decision's to be Clarifications.  In time, I'm sure it will become equally as large.

[Socrates]

8 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

My take is that the ruling bodies don't want moulded grips but there's no easy way to quantify when a grip has worn down too much just by looking at the grip itself. The shaft provides a clear visual checkpoint for this purpose.

I can see where a person might think that based on the Equipment Rules, Interpretations 3.a, but it is still conflicting with the Rules 4.1a, which I think is very clear.  If they wanted to make that type of Ruling/Clarification, it would be very easy to put into print.

 

[Mr. Bean]

14 hours ago, Socrates said:

I can see where a person might think that based on the Equipment Rules, Interpretations 3.a, but it is still conflicting with the Rules 4.1a, which I think is very clear.  If they wanted to make that type of Ruling/Clarification, it would be very easy to put into print.

 

 

I appreciate your purity of mind but there are lots and lots of rulings given out by R&A and USGA that are not printed anywhere officially or at all. Even the text in the Rules is sometimes "explained" differently than what it appears to tell even though it would be "very easy to put in print". For some peculiar reason the Ruling Bodies suffer from a desease called unclarity when it comes to written text.

 

My favourite example of such unclarity is a ball touching but not breaking the vertical margin of the course from the outside. Ball in or out? According to the written Rules it is out but according to the ruling by R&A it is in. It would be extremely easy to write the Rule (Definition) in such a way that there would be no need to clarify but for some reason that has not been done.

[Mr. Bean]

22 hours ago, antip said:

I don't have any problem with that. But whatever they want should be transparent, not only revealed in a TARS presentation!

 

Says a person who has discussions with the RBs and gets official rulings in private that are not printed anywhere 😉

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Says a person who has discussions with the RBs and gets official rulings in private that are not printed anywhere 😉

True, but I would much rather the responses to the questions I ask (and I ask because there is not a clear cut answer in the published words) are provided publicly not privately. And if I see anyone ask the same question on a forum such as this, I share the answer I've received.

[antip]

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I appreciate your purity of mind but there are lots and lots of rulings given out by R&A and USGA that are not printed anywhere officially or at all. Even the text in the Rules is sometimes "explained" differently than what it appears to tell even though it would be "very easy to put in print". For some peculiar reason the Ruling Bodies suffer from a desease called unclarity when it comes to written text.

 

My favourite example of such unclarity is a ball touching but not breaking the vertical margin of the course from the outside. Ball in or out? According to the written Rules it is out but according to the ruling by R&A it is in. It would be extremely easy to write the Rule (Definition) in such a way that there would be no need to clarify but for some reason that has not been done.

On your second para - there is a very good reason it has not been done - it is not an agreed interpretation. I appreciate that you have told us in this forum that a very senior R&A person told you words to this effect a few years back but....

 

It is contradicted by Diagram 18.2a which shows a ball touching but not breaking the vertical edge of the course. 

And here's some public USGA words "The course-side edge of the line defines the boundary. If any part of the ball is inside (course-side) that edge then it is on the course." So if if it not inside the edge, it is not on the course. 

 

And in another place: " If no part of the ball is inside the boundary edge then it is OB."

 

In sum, the published words do not support the statement "touching the vertical edge is on the course".

Edited Monday at 09:31 AM by antip

[nsxguy]

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I appreciate your purity of mind but there are lots and lots of rulings given out by R&A and USGA that are not printed anywhere officially or at all. Even the text in the Rules is sometimes "explained" differently than what it appears to tell even though it would be "very easy to put in print". For some peculiar reason the Ruling Bodies suffer from a desease called unclarity when it comes to written text.

 

My favourite example of such unclarity is a ball touching but not breaking the vertical margin of the course from the outside. Ball in or out? According to the written Rules it is out but according to the ruling by R&A it is in. It would be extremely easy to write the Rule (Definition) in such a way that there would be no need to clarify but for some reason that has not been done.

 

8 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Says a person who has discussions with the RBs and gets official rulings in private that are not printed anywhere 😉

 

I'm confused. Isn't that exactly what you've just done ?

[Bonneville85308]

On 3/18/2023 at 5:23 PM, Greenie said:

 

Are you talking about one of the guys I play with. I going to say it has been 20 yrs for him. Not only do the grips have finger marks the grips are dry rotted,  crumbling and chucks are falling off. I happened to pull out a hybrid for him and it had mold and green fuzzy stuff on the grip. I broke out laughing and asked him how that happened. He said I guess I haven't used that club in a while. I can't make this stuff up..LOL

 

We must know the same guy or I know his twin brother. Same story on his grips. They were a constant source of us ribbing him. One year on a buddies trip a few of us decided to get his 5-wood grip replaced for him while he was sleeping since it was worn down to the shaft in some parts and had a section of it flapping off, he got all mad at us and wanted us to go back to that shop and try to have them rescue the old grip out of the trash can and glue it back on. This was a guy who, at best, shot mid-80s from the next tees back from forward.

Edited Monday at 04:33 PM by Bonneville85308

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, antip said:

 

On your second para - there is a very good reason it has not been done - it is not an agreed interpretation. I appreciate that you have told us in this forum that a very senior R&A person told you words to this effect a few years back but....

 

It is contradicted by Diagram 18.2a which shows a ball touching but not breaking the vertical edge of the course. 

And here's some public USGA words "The course-side edge of the line defines the boundary. If any part of the ball is inside (course-side) that edge then it is on the course." So if if it not inside the edge, it is not on the course. 

 

And in another place: " If no part of the ball is inside the boundary edge then it is OB."

 

In sum, the published words do not support the statement "touching the vertical edge is on the course".

 

The diagram in 18.2a has no diagram where a ball is touching and not breaking the margin. If there was the case would be clear and that is my entire point ("it would be easy to etc.").

 

Afa those public words from USGA are concerned, it would be nice to have them in the Rules and not just on a random forum or another place visited only 0,001% of the interested parties. After all, we have seen several incorrect rulings given by "USGA sources" in the past.

 

In a nut shell: in the Rules of Golf the text should be so clear that no misunderstanding cannot take place. Now there's a task for the Ruling Bodies.

[Halebopp]

I just noticed that the TARS equipment ruling presentation mentions "grips worn to an unacceptable level". Also, a dent in the shaft beneath the grip can also make the grip moulded for the hands if the dent is big enough. So, now I feel safe saying I have knowledge or virtual certainty about what we were taught. 🙂

[Mr. Bean]

53 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

I just noticed that the TARS equipment ruling presentation mentions "grips worn to an unacceptable level". Also, a dent in the shaft beneath the grip can also make the grip moulded for the hands if the dent is big enough. So, now I feel safe saying I have knowledge or virtual certainty about what we were taught. 🙂

 

That makes things unexceptionally vague. How would one make a ruling based on that?? 

 

I believe and concur as soon as that will be printed in the Rules.

[Socrates]

1 hour ago, Halebopp said:

I just noticed that the TARS equipment ruling presentation mentions "grips worn to an unacceptable level". Also, a dent in the shaft beneath the grip can also make the grip moulded for the hands if the dent is big enough. So, now I feel safe saying I have knowledge or virtual certainty about what we were taught. 🙂

I would think that you, as a RO, would never encounter this scenario in a high level event. 

 

Although, someone who feels jaded at missing out on the 3rd place money in the 4th flight of the Men's Opening, might complain to the Pro about Jimmy X who has a really worn grip on his driver and want him DQ'ed for an illegal grip.  Before he tells him to FO, he might actually just look it up and Rule 4 is going to tell him, it's OK.

[Dpavs]

As part of the discussion I think that there are a few things that need to be kept in mind from the equipment rules when assessing wear.

 

Material decomposition or deterioration is not generally considered to be wear.

...“wear” is defined to be the erosion of material (as opposed to “damage”, which is usually caused by a single load or repeatedly applied loads).

When a used club is pendulum tested (see Part 2 Section 4c(i)) in the field and a result in excess of 257 μs is attained, the specific club will be deemed to be damaged into a non-conforming state, based on the presumption that it conformed when new and was included on the List of Conforming Driver Heads.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Dpavs said:

Material decomposition or deterioration is not generally considered to be wear.

...“wear” is defined to be the erosion of material (as opposed to “damage”, which is usually caused by a single load or repeatedly applied loads).

 

 

I wonder how one can separate a worn-out shoe from a "damaged one by repeatedly applied loads", such as taking steps with that shoe. Also I wonder whether a grip molded by repeated use could be considered worn or damaged by repeatedly applied loads. What is the difference? Part of the grip has changed its form in use, is it worn or damaged? And what about a driver face? With every stroke tiny particles of metal are separated from the face. Wear or damage?

 

Heavy splitting hair, IMHO.

[Dpavs]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I wonder how one can separate a worn-out shoe from a "damaged one by repeatedly applied loads", such as taking steps with that shoe. Also I wonder whether a grip molded by repeated use could be considered worn or damaged by repeatedly applied loads. What is the difference? Part of the grip has changed its form in use, is it worn or damaged? And what about a driver face? With every stroke tiny particles of metal are separated from the face. Wear or damage?

 

Heavy splitting hair, IMHO.

 

Definitely seems like a number of other things... a judgment call has to be made and lived with at some point.