It's official: USGA, R&A propose anchor ban

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354659011' post='6018535']
[quote name='topekareal' timestamp='1354658672' post='6018503']
That's fair...just interesting where people decide to draw certain lines...the long putter, as you state, is intended to be used in a near vertical fashion, but it clearly does not violate any rules of golf...it may bump up against them, but it certainly doesn't break any rules....it's interesting that when we put limits on things, whether it be how a club is used or the size of a club, grooves, etc. some people are applauded for pushing boundaries and some people are seen as circumventing a rule...And I wish it was as simple as how one feels about the difficulty of the game because for every person who feels it's not right to limit the difficulty of putting, thousands more are all about hitting the ball further and straighter...
[/quote]
There is a rule that states a variation in lie angle can be required where the club is designed to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner but it is extremely vague and never seems to have been enforced for some reason. Clearly there was an intent for a pendulum motion not to have been permitted. Good points though.
[/quote]

I'm honestly amazed with all of the emphasis on what constitutes a proper stroke, this pendulum motion thing hasn't been addressed...if the goal is really to define what constitutes a free swing, I don't see how they allow the Kuchar method or any type of long putter...

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='505' timestamp='1354659305' post='6018577']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354658889' post='6018529']
[quote name='505' timestamp='1354657877' post='6018441']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354656454' post='6018319']
There is no reason an intelligent and creative person would go about solving the challenges of driving and putting in the same way.
[/quote]

You're totally right. Next time I go out to shoot some pool I'll just remind everyone that there is a fundamental difference between breaking and pocketing the 9, so from now on I'm going to only use a cue for break shots. [b]For the others I'm going to roll the ball with my hand because I'm less likely to miss an easy tap in[/b]. They can all do it too so it's not an unfair advantage, who cares if we all now look like idiots?

Absolute nonsense.
[/quote]
Yes what you suggest is absolute nonsense. Not to mention, it's also against the rules. And always has been.
[/quote]

But I want to keep playing the game man. Every once in awhile I top an easy one with a cue, and this is the only way I can keep playing.
[/quote]

I think we should probably drop the billiard analogy...it isn't anywhere close...

[nbg352]

[quote name='505' timestamp='1354659305' post='6018577']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354658889' post='6018529']
[quote name='505' timestamp='1354657877' post='6018441']
[quote name='BenSnead' timestamp='1354656454' post='6018319']
There is no reason an intelligent and creative person would go about solving the challenges of driving and putting in the same way.
[/quote]

You're totally right. Next time I go out to shoot some pool I'll just remind everyone that there is a fundamental difference between breaking and pocketing the 9, so from now on I'm going to only use a cue for break shots. [b]For the others I'm going to roll the ball with my hand because I'm less likely to miss an easy tap in[/b]. They can all do it too so it's not an unfair advantage, who cares if we all now look like idiots?

Absolute nonsense.
[/quote]
Yes what you suggest is absolute nonsense. Not to mention, it's also against the rules. And always has been.
[/quote]

But I want to keep playing the game man. Every once in awhile I top an easy one with a cue, and this is the only way I can keep playing.
[/quote]
Then you would be cheating under the existing rules and you would give ball in hand every time you did it, until the 9 ball was down. This is not even a close corrollory to golf, as the proposed rule against anchoring is just that. Proposed and brand new. Anchoring is and was legal, until such time as a ban goes into effect. Not using a cue to play pool is and always was just preposterous and illegal.

[Vindog]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.

[spooky]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
You stopped me winning an internet bet. lol

Siem is an [b]extremely[/b] good example of this.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354659516' post='6018591']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659279' post='6018571']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354658383' post='6018487']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354658054' post='6018453']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354657792' post='6018433']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354654065' post='6018141']
The idea that all strokes should be the same is outlandish.
[/quote]
Why? I mean the fundamental aspect of taking a free swing with all clubs?
[/quote]
Well, because they're not all the same. And even the fact that there are different rules surrounding the putter itself tells us that it's different. I understand the intent to define what a "stroke" should be, but using the argument that you've never seen a player tee off with an anchored club is not exactly winning the case.

I guess that's where I was going...
[/quote]
Well, I wouldn't have tried that one... anchoring a driver would be daft. I don't see the problem with a stroke that is commonly accepted as being traditional - [b]grip the club and swing it freely[/b]. If someone finds it difficult then that's a shame but it's not meant to be an easy game.
[/quote]
You have been bandying this about as if it is a rule. It is not. Nowhere in the rules of golf is this term used, loosely or precisely.Perhaps you can elaborate?
[/quote]
What on earth are you talking about? At what point did I say or infer it was a rule? Come on fella, get a grip (and swing freely) - I simply said consistently that I feel this is how the game should be played. You're stretching a bit there and possibly just trying to argue for the sake of it. I don't see the point of your response.
[/quote]
Because you use it as if it was a rule. I wanted to be clear, it is not. And it is only your opinion that that is the intent in the existing rules as applied to the swing, righ?t. Because that phrase or intent is nowhere in the rules of golf. Maybe you shouldn't use it as if it was?

[nbg352]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659986' post='6018645']
Because you use it as if it was a rule. I wanted to be clear, it is not. And it is only your opinion that that is the intent in the existing rules as applied to the swing, righ?t. Because that phrase or intent is nowhere in the rules of golf. Maybe you shouldn't use it as if it was?
[/quote]
I think you've gone off the deep end here nbg. I don't use it as if it were a rule in any way whatsoever - most of the time that I have said this it has been very close to words saying that I think that is how the game should be played. I haven't ever said it is the intent of the rules either. I think you're talking poo with this line.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-on-Clubs-and-Balls/Clubs/#general"]http://www.usga.org/.../Clubs/#general[/url]
d - Appendix II, 1d

When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that:
(i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees;

'Myth' settled.

I wouldn't say it was a fact if it wasn't - rather than just my opinion.

[505]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659709' post='6018611']Not using a cue to play pool is and always was just preposterous and illegal.
[/quote]

That was the point. And thankfully, we can soon say the same thing about anchored putting.

[nbg352]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
Also, please let us in on Marcel Siem's importance in this topic?

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660755' post='6018687']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
Also, please let us in on Marcel Siem's importance in this topic?
[/quote]
Have you not seen his putting method?

A simple thanks will do by the way.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660755' post='6018687']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
Also, please let us in on Marcel Siem's importance in this topic?
[/quote]

[url="http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/gallery_images/photos/000/369/893/GYI0060390017_crop_450x500.jpg?1273498452"]http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/gallery_images/photos/000/369/893/GYI0060390017_crop_450x500.jpg?1273498452[/url]

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354660251' post='6018661']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-on-Clubs-and-Balls/Clubs/#general"]http://www.usga.org/.../Clubs/#general[/url]
d - Appendix II, 1d

When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that:
(i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees;

'Myth' settled.

I wouldn't say it was a fact if it wasn't - rather than just my opinion.
[/quote]
Nothing nebulous about this wording at all. Very easy to enforce. If it looks like the putter or club is easily operated from a greater than 80*position, it is illegal and must be bent until it is no longer easy to operate in that position. No tour player would knowingly use a club that could be called into account and deemed illegal under existing rules. It would be the end of him / her.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354661013' post='6018705']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660755' post='6018687']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
Also, please let us in on Marcel Siem's importance in this topic?
[/quote]
Have you not seen his putting method?

A simple thanks will do by the way.
[/quote]
Nope, but if he has never been penalized or had any complaint upheld against him, I'd suggest that what he does is perfectly legal.Regardless of what some may think.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354661646' post='6018747']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354660251' post='6018661']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-on-Clubs-and-Balls/Clubs/#general"]http://www.usga.org/.../Clubs/#general[/url]
d - Appendix II, 1d

When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that:
(i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees;

'Myth' settled.

I wouldn't say it was a fact if it wasn't - rather than just my opinion.
[/quote]
Nothing nebulous about this wording at all. Very easy to enforce. If it looks like the putter or club is easily operated from a greater than 80*position, it is illegal and must be bent until it is no longer easy to operate in that position. No tour player would knowingly use a club that could be called into account and deemed illegal under existing rules. It would be the end of him / her.
[/quote]

Yep.

It seems that he's counting on you not understanding the difference between "[i]may be required"[/i] and "[i]must be required." [/i]

The only mandatory part of that rule is that a club must have a lie angle of at least 80*.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354661646' post='6018747']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354660251' post='6018661']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-on-Clubs-and-Balls/Clubs/#general"]http://www.usga.org/.../Clubs/#general[/url]
d - Appendix II, 1d

When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that:
(i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees;

'Myth' settled.

I wouldn't say it was a fact if it wasn't - rather than just my opinion.
[/quote]
Nothing nebulous about this wording at all. Very easy to enforce. If it looks like the putter or club is easily operated from a greater than 80*position, it is illegal and must be bent until it is no longer easy to operate in that position. No tour player would knowingly use a club that could be called into account and deemed illegal under existing rules. It would be the end of him / her.
[/quote]
"[b]may[/b] be required" - "by as much as".

Hardly clear and that picture is not a good one to judge his technique by. I don't think I have seen anyone hold the putter in a more upright position than him.

The use of the word "may" allows discretion - "by as much as" enables a range of adjustment being required to address the problem rather than a specific solution. Rather vague and an odd rule.

You are welcome by the way... you said you had been looking for this for a month - I provide it to you and don't even get a thanks. Amazing. Obviously not where you thought it was going.

[nbg352]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354661511' post='6018739']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660755' post='6018687']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
Also, please let us in on Marcel Siem's importance in this topic?
[/quote]

[url="http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/gallery_images/photos/000/369/893/GYI0060390017_crop_450x500.jpg?1273498452"]http://cdn.bleacherr....jpg?1273498452[/url]
[/quote]
Thankls Kelly...and this is controversial, how?

[spooky]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354662055' post='6018777']
The only mandatory part of that rule is that a club must have a lie angle of at least 80*.
[/quote]
And thus we have a rule that does not have any mandatory requirement as a consequence of the condition described. What fun.

I wasn't 'counting on' anything. I rather hoped he would understand it immediately. The initial position was that nbg did not think the rule existed and I sought to prove otherwise.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354662330' post='6018795']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1354661511' post='6018739']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660755' post='6018687']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
Also, please let us in on Marcel Siem's importance in this topic?
[/quote]

[url="http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/gallery_images/photos/000/369/893/GYI0060390017_crop_450x500.jpg?1273498452"]http://cdn.bleacherr....jpg?1273498452[/url]
[/quote]
Thankls Kelly...and this is controversial, how?
[/quote]

You'll have to ask The Riddler. I'm not even sure that he knows what he's getting at on this one.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354662116' post='6018779']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354661646' post='6018747']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354660251' post='6018661']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1354659743' post='6018615']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']It has never been enforced because it does not exist. Period. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]

Such wording does, in fact, exist. And the fact that it is oft overlooked has been discussed by Mr Spooky and myself.

Admittedly, I found it interesting that it is kind of overlooked as being a possible "out" for the Bodies to rule in the past. (on broomsticks, at the very least)

Marcel Siem is a good example of this.
[/quote]
Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-on-Clubs-and-Balls/Clubs/#general"]http://www.usga.org/.../Clubs/#general[/url]
d - Appendix II, 1d

When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that:
(i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees;

'Myth' settled.

I wouldn't say it was a fact if it wasn't - rather than just my opinion.
[/quote]
Nothing nebulous about this wording at all. Very easy to enforce. If it looks like the putter or club is easily operated from a greater than 80*position, it is illegal and must be bent until it is no longer easy to operate in that position. No tour player would knowingly use a club that could be called into account and deemed illegal under existing rules. It would be the end of him / her.
[/quote]
"[b]may[/b] be required" - "by as much as".

Hardly clear and that picture is not a good one to judge his technique by. I don't think I have seen anyone hold the putter in a more upright position than him.

The use of the word "may" allows discretion - "by as much as" enables a range of adjustment being required to address the problem rather than a specific solution. Rather vague and an odd rule.

You are welcome by the way... you said you had been looking for this for a month - I provide it to you and don't even get a thanks. Amazing. Obviously not where you thought it was going.
[/quote]
H*ll I was aware of this rule. Just never thought anyone could possibly think it was vague or unenforceable. I was expecting something obscure and scary. this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Nice try.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354659011' post='6018535']
[b]There is a rule that states a variation in lie angle can be required where the club is designed to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner[/b] but it is extremely vague and never seems to have been enforced for some reason. Clearly there was an intent for a pendulum motion not to have been permitted. Good points though.
[/quote]
It has never been enforced [b]because it does not exist. Period[/b]. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[b]Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354662721' post='6018827']
H*ll[b] I was aware of this rule[/b]. Just never thought anyone could possibly think it was vague or unenforceable. I was expecting something obscure and scary. this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Nice try.
[/quote]
Wow. Not even the good grace to admit you were wrong and now digging. For some reason I thought you were a bit better than that. Clearly you don't understand the word "may". You are right - this is ridiculous - just not in the way you meant.

[505]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354663217' post='6018863']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354659011' post='6018535']
[b]There is a rule that states a variation in lie angle can be required where the club is designed to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner[/b] but it is extremely vague and never seems to have been enforced for some reason. Clearly there was an intent for a pendulum motion not to have been permitted. Good points though.
[/quote]
It has never been enforced [b]because it does not exist. Period[/b]. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[b]Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354662721' post='6018827']
H*ll[b] I was aware of this rule[/b]. Just never thought anyone could possibly think it was vague or unenforceable. I was expecting something obscure and scary. this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Nice try.
[/quote]
Wow. Not even the good grace to admit you were wrong and now digging. For some reason I thought you were a bit better than that. Clearly you don't understand the word "may". You are right - this is ridiculous - just not in the way you meant.
[/quote]

Unreal.

"There is no rule, period". -> "Show me the rule, I can't find it". -> "I knew about the rule all along".

Alrighty then. You aren't by chance in politics, are you?

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354663217' post='6018863']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354659011' post='6018535']
[b]There is a rule that states a variation in lie angle can be required where the club is designed to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner[/b] but it is extremely vague and never seems to have been enforced for some reason. Clearly there was an intent for a pendulum motion not to have been permitted. Good points though.
[/quote]
It has never been enforced [b]because it does not exist. Period[/b]. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[b]Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354662721' post='6018827']
H*ll[b] I was aware of this rule[/b]. Just never thought anyone could possibly think it was vague or unenforceable. I was expecting something obscure and scary. this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Nice try.
[/quote]
Wow. Not even the good grace to admit you were wrong and now digging. [b]For some reason I thought you were a bit better than that[/b]. Clearly you don't understand the word "may". You are right - this is ridiculous - just not in the way you meant.
[/quote]
Sorry, I'm not the one reaching here. Aside from yourselves, this rule's wording has not been deemed controversial by any golfing organization or individual, or governing body that I'm aware of.
And just to clarify....I fit clubs, so I am aware of the 80* rule. I was not aware that anyone considered it controversial. with the exception of yourself, of course. Your words, dripping with sarcasm, clearly suggest that anyone who does not see the rule through your jaundiced lens is a lesser person for not having seen the light of the matter in the same shade of yellow as you do.
Sorry, I do not.

[inpresX]

80° rule is my least favorite rule.

[nbg352]

[quote name='505' timestamp='1354663929' post='6018917']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354663217' post='6018863']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354659462' post='6018589']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354659011' post='6018535']
[b]There is a rule that states a variation in lie angle can be required where the club is designed to be used in a vertical or near-vertical manner[/b] but it is extremely vague and never seems to have been enforced for some reason. Clearly there was an intent for a pendulum motion not to have been permitted. Good points though.
[/quote]
It has never been enforced [b]because it does not exist. Period[/b]. If it existed, it would not be vague and it would be enforced.
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354660133' post='6018651']
[b]Please point me to it in the rules. I've been looking for it for a month and I can't find it anywhere.....You are not the first to think it exists. Let's settle this myth now.[/b]
[/quote]
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354662721' post='6018827']
H*ll[b] I was aware of this rule[/b]. Just never thought anyone could possibly think it was vague or unenforceable. I was expecting something obscure and scary. this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Nice try.
[/quote]
Wow. Not even the good grace to admit you were wrong and now digging. For some reason I thought you were a bit better than that. Clearly you don't understand the word "may". You are right - this is ridiculous - just not in the way you meant.
[/quote]

Unreal.

"There is no rule, period". -> "Show me the rule, I can't find it". -> "I knew about the rule all along".

Alrighty then. You aren't by chance in politics, are you?
[/quote]
By now it should be clear that What they deemed a controversial rule, I took for granted. I thought they might lead me to a wording that would be as controversial to me as they made it out to be. They didn't. No club may be designed or built to be used in a vertical or near vertical manner. It may not have a lie greater than 80* and if it can be demonstrated that it can be effectively used in a vertical or near vertical manner, then it is non conforming and illegal to use. It may be possible to make it conforming again, by bending it up to 25 degrees. If not, it is simply illegal to use it.

[inpresX]

This putter is designed to be used vertical shafted and is legal:

http://www.face-on-putting.com/#

...until someone uses it on tour.

Nice to see he has face on wedges now too.

[spooky]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354665207' post='6019021']
By now it should be clear that What they deemed a controversial rule, I took for granted. I thought they might lead me to a wording that would be as controversia to mel as they made it out to be. They didn't. No club may be designed or built to be used in a vertical or near vertical manner. It may not have a lie greater than 80* and if it can be demonstrated that it can be effectively used in avertical, then it is non conforming and illegal to use. It may be possible to make it conforming again, by bending it up to 25 degrees. If not, it is simply illegal to use it.
[/quote]
Nobody said it was a controversial rule. The wording and the dialogue was quoted above and was clearly understood by anyone reading it. If you also don't understand the importance of the word "may" and how that makes the rule vague then there is no help for you. You were busted and you are now just making yourself look silly. Stop digging!

[spooky]

[quote name='inpresX' timestamp='1354665361' post='6019037']
This putter is designed to be used vertical shafted and is legal:

[url="http://www.face-on-putting.com/#"]http://www.face-on-putting.com/#[/url]

...until someone uses it on tour.

Nice to see he has face on wedges now too.
[/quote]
It isn't 'vertical shafted'. The interesting thing about this is that it is clearly designed to be used with a vertical stroke. That should invoke the rule that has been mentioned - the consequence is that the lie 'may' (or may not) be required to be increased up to 25 degrees (or not, or less, or not at all). Odd rule. According to some it is clear and easy to enforce though.

[nbg352]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1354665383' post='6019041']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1354665207' post='6019021']
By now it should be clear that What they deemed a controversial rule, I took for granted. I thought they might lead me to a wording that would be as controversia to mel as they made it out to be. They didn't. No club may be designed or built to be used in a vertical or near vertical manner. It may not have a lie greater than 80* and if it can be demonstrated that it can be effectively used in avertical, then it is non conforming and illegal to use. It may be possible to make it conforming again, by bending it up to 25 degrees. If not, it is simply illegal to use it.
[/quote]
Nobody said it was a controversial rule. The wording and the dialogue was quoted above and was clearly understood by anyone reading it. If you also don't understand the importance of the word "may" and how that makes the rule vague then there is no help for you. You were busted and you are now just making yourself look silly. Stop digging!
[/quote]
If a club does not fit the definition of the rule, then the club is nonconforming and illegal to use, Nothing about the rule is vague. Quit digging, yourself. the word "may" is only useful if the non-conforming club could otherwise be made to conform by bending it. Then it may be done. Permission granted to make it legal, no bigee if you don't, because as it is, you can't use it.Shall is not used, because it makes it imperative. This is not necessary, because the club is already deemed illegal.