Conforms with
USGA Rules!












Patented Putting
(DMI)

Atlanta Office:

1820 Ridgemill Terrace

Dacula, GA 30019

Toll Free:
1-888-835-4563

Local:
678-482-8507

Fax:
678-482-8509

 

 

PRESS RELEASES!

Recent USGA Decisions May Create More Controversy



 (Note: See USGA response # 1 and response # 2 below.)

Atlanta, GA – November 22, 2000. 
Comparable to the election rules in Florida, USGA decision 2000-455 and USGA decision 2000-614 demonstrate the lack of clarity in the wording and interpretation of the Rules of Golf in Appendix II – Design of Clubs. 

The above decisions involve the term Striking Faces set forth in Rule 4c in Appendix II.  In July, 2000 Petitioner, Dale Miller, JD submitted a new club called a Putting Wedge which contained a striking face for use as a putter and striking face for use as a wedge including groves on wedge face. 

The petitioner was informed that his Putting Wedge has two striking faces and does not conform with Rule 4c which states:   “The clubhead shall have only one striking face,…”

The design was created by the petitioner after watching professional golfers use their sandwedge to strike the ball with the leading edge, not the grooved surface of the sandwedge, when the ball was off the green up against the edge of the rough.  The need for this special putter design was heightened after watching the use of putters many yards off the green at the 2000 British Open Championship.

Petitioner then filled the grooves in a new conforming design and changed the lie angle.  The rounded sole used in the design of wedges was maintained and the leading edge, widened to be used as a putter striking face, was maintained. The use of any other striking face on the Flathead Putter was no more feasible than using a second striking face on any other approved golf club.

A new model called a Flathead Putter, was submitted in October 2000 with one striking face and a lie angle used in putter design.  USGA ruled in Decision 2000-614 Flathead Putter, as submitted does not conform with Rule 4c Appendix II because a clubhead shall have only one striking face. 

What is the import of these recent decisions by the USGA if Rule 4c is uniformly applied to all golfers and manufacturers subject to the USGA Rules?

1.     If a golf club design allows a golfer the possibility of using an alternate striking face to strike a golf ball, the club does not conform with Rule 4c.

2.       When playing a shot, if the golfer intentionally decides not to use the designed striking face on the club, what penalty is assessed for using a second striking face which is prohibited by Rule 4c.

3.       If a conforming clubhead shall have only one striking face, then the rules must require the player intentionally use only the striking face intended to be used or incur a penalty.

4.       The uniform application of Rule 4c would not allow a golfer to use a sandwedge to intentionally strike a ball with the leading edge of the club.

5.       The uniform application of Rule 4c would never allow a golfer to use the back side or toe end of any iron or putter, except for a putter with an identical opposite face, to strike a ball that is in play.

In the name of preserving the essence of the game of golf, is the current USGA leadership trying to limit creative golf shots and creative golf club design?

Dale D. Miller, JD
USGA Member

CONTACT:  Dale Miller, JD & CEO
Patented Putting Company 678-482-8508
Cell Phone: 770.329.0682

Email:dmiller176@aol.com

Website: www.patentedputting.com

USGA Response # 1

Dear Mr. Miller:
>
> I recently had the opportunity to review your November 22 press release
> regarding the above. After reviewing it, I felt obliged to clarify the
> issue of fairly striking at the ball. Section 4c. of Appendix II relates
> only to the design of a club. Rule 14-1 specifically governs fairly
> striking the ball and reads as follows: "The ball shall be fairly struck
> at with the head of the club and must not be pushed scraped or spooned."
> Thus points (2), (4) and (5) that you raise in your release are
> inaccurate. Decision 14-1/1 from Decisions on the Rules of Golf further
> clarifies this point:
>
> 14-1/1 Playing Stroke with Back of Clubhead
>
> Q. May a player play a left-handed stroke with the back of the head of a
> right-handed club?
>
> A. Yes. A player may play a stroke with any part of the clubhead, provided
> the ball is fairly struck at (Rule 14-1) and the club conforms with Rule
> 4-1.
>
> The above referenced Rules and Decisions can be reviewed at the Rules
> section of the USGA web site. The address is www.usga.org/rules.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeffrey A. Hall
> Assistant Director, Rules of Golf

Response # 1 to USGA by Dale Miller, JD

In a message dated 12/4/00 9:49:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, jhall@USGA.org writes:

<< Rule 14-1 specifically governs fairly striking the ball and reads as follows: "The ball shall be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed scraped or spooned. "Thus points (2), (4) and (5) that you raise in your release are inaccurate.

Dear Mr. Hall:
Thank you for your response and information. Your answer is accurate only if there is another rule that gives you the authority to declare that Rule 14-1 trumps Rule 4(c) in Appendix II. If that authority exists, then "the head of the club" can have more than one striking surface and effectively makes Rule 4(c) inoperative. These rules are obviously in conflict unless you accept the premise that the USGA can be arbitrary and selective in the application of its rules.

Rules that allow a governing body to be arbitrary and selective diminish the stature and effectiveness of a governing body because the application and interpretation of the rules is subjective. If the purpose of a rule is to maintain power and control over those who play the game, then subjective application and interpretation are necessary.

In the domain of club design subjective application and interpretation of rules leads to controversy that can and should be avoided. Rule 4(c) does not define "striking face." In order to have a uniform application and interpretation of the Rule 4(c) the USGA should clearly define the term "striking face" and clearly indicate what is and what is not allowed as a "striking face." In addition, the USGA needs to clearly indicate when a "striking face" is not an alternate "striking face" under Rule 4(c) when the clubhead is being used to fairly strike a ball under Rule 14-1.

If the USGA desires the controversy it is currently experiencing with club manufacturers, changes to Rule (4c) would be contraindicated. As you know, if the current USGA leadership acted with a clear purpose to reduce the possibility of future controversy under its rules, that would increase the stature of the USGA.

Let me know your thoughts. I believe this kind of dialogue between the USGA and a member is healthy. What do you think?

Dale Miller, JD

USGA Response # 2

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I suggest to you that your opinion that Section 4(c) in Appendix II conflicts with Rule 14-1 is flawed. Section 4(c) of Appendix II establishes the guidelines for a club to be considered conforming, nothing more. Rule 14-1 clarifies the manner in which a conforming club can be used, nothing more. I fail to see any inconsistency or conflict.
Sincerely,

Jeff Hall

Response # 2 to USGA by Dale Miller, JD

In a message dated 12/5/00 1:46:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, jhall@USGA.org writes:

<< I suggest to you that your opinion that Section 4(c) in Appendix II conflicts with Rule 14-1 is flawed. Section 4(c) of Appendix II establishes the guidelines for a club to be considered conforming, nothing more. Rule 14-1 clarifies the manner in which a conforming club can be used, nothing more. I fail to see any inconsistency or conflict.

Jeff:
Obviously I believe your use of the word "clarifies" when applied to Rule 14-1 is misplaced and your use of the word "guidelines" in reference to Rule 4(c) is less than convincing. It is now clear to me that your organization prefers rules that can be interpreted subjectively and I prefer rules that can be interpreted objectively.

This difference is very common between a governing body and its subjects. You are a member of the governing body and I am the subject. You want to preserve and protect the power that comes with subjective interpretation. As the subject, I want objective rules to apply when I play the game of golf and when I undertake to develop new tools to play the game. I will continue to advocate that the USGA define terms and adopt very specific guidelines to follow in Appendix II.

Finally, I will continue to advocate that a penalty should be assessed in the following instance: If a club can have only one "striking face" then a golfer who intentionally uses a conforming club to strike a ball at a spot on the club other than a spot on the approved striking face, the golfer should incur a penalty.

Dale Miller, JD

Call Dale Miller, JD for a private demo club
showing
at Hamilton Mill Golf in Atlanta, GA.
(678) 482-8508

 

 


Patented Putting (DMI) - 1820 Ridgemill Terrace
Dacula, GA 30019 • 1-888-835-4563 • 678-482-8509 Fax