"The reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule."

Tim Finchem (click to enlarge)Fighting off of a profusely bleeding paper cut, Tim Finchem joined us in the Northern Trust Open press center at 10:30 with a Mickelson presser set for 11, so naturally he kept that in mind with his opening remarks.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  Thank you, Laura.  Good morning, everyone.  Laura tells me we're on a hard stop here at 11:00, so I'm going to make some brief remarks and see if I can answer your questions.

18 minutes and the entire history of groove squabbles in golf later...

 During these first four weeks, we have had five players  we've had 218 different players play those four tournaments.  Of those 218 players, five different players have actually used a Ping Eye 2 manufactured before 1990; not a huge amount of usage, but a number that was sufficient to create a fair amount of interest, particularly when one of the best players in the world in the short game area chose to use it, which he was fully entitled to do.

And that focus on the rule has led to a couple of things.  One is that there was some unfortunate commentary by other players in the media in the last week or so, and let me just pause there and restate, as I issued my statement last week, these are the rules of golf.  Any player is entitled under these rules to play a Ping Eye 2 wedge designed before 1990 if he so chooses.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing that violates the rule.  There is no hidden direction to players or side direction not to play that club, so there is absolutely no basis to criticize a player for doing so.  None.  And to do so in our view is inappropriate.

No grey area there. Makes me wonder if McCarron faced a possible suspension?

With respect to a particular player that used a particularly unfortunate choice of words, I would say that there is perhaps a mitigating factor to the amount of reaction.  There is no justification for certain language being used, but the reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule.

Now, what do I mean by that?

We screwed up?

Well, two years ago when we instituted our drug policy, we made sure that we were in front of every single player in dialogue on the ramifications of drug testing, on the reality that you could be suspended if you violated the drug testing rules, and the dos and don'ts of staying in compliance.  Players paid attention.  They came out and performed, and we haven't had drug issues on this TOUR.  That's not to say we haven't had a violation; that's been reported.  But we haven't had issues.

We didn't act with that level of intensity.  In my view, had we, the reaction to the use of these clubs might have been lesser.  But that is what it is, and I think we're about to close the chapter on that part of the history of this.

Well there you have it, an admission of error, Finchem style.

In this particular case, the most striking thing about the difference between the groove discussion in 1989 and '90, which was based on some tests and led to a lack of confidence on the part of the PGA TOUR or the USGA that you could win a lawsuit, in this case there have been years and years of very careful measurement of data, of the lack of correlation of hitting the ball in the fairway and performing well on the PGA TOUR, so it's a very strong case, and I think that's one of the reasons you didn't see a lawsuit amongst manufacturers here, because there is a strong case.

But the byproduct  I know I've read some people say this is a backdoor attempt to create softer balls.  I'm not aware of anybody that believes that. 

Uh Tim, that's Dick Rugge, USGA for starters.

But I do think that with this rule we really could relax a little bit about the need to fool around with the ball and the driver for an extended period of time.  That's my only view. 

Well good to know that after five weeks you were able to draw a conclusion from the data.

Ryo's Press Conference Before The Press Conference

Just in case he has new revelations today that he can't share tomorrow, here's Ryo Ishikawa's impromptu sit down with scribblers and photographers this afternoon. He's scheduled to come in the media center Tuesday as well.

"Since last summer Phil has been feuding with the blue coats over a groove developed by Callaway that was called the multiangle wall (MAW) design."

Alan Shipnuck offers this background on Phil's decision to play the PING wedges and what motivated the stunt:

Since last summer Phil has been feuding with the blue coats over a groove developed by Callaway that was called the multiangle wall (MAW) design. The MAW adhered to all of the USGA specs governing the new grooves but still imparted spin comparable to the old square grooves. In profile the MAW looks a bit like a martini glass, with sharp edges where the groove wall meets the plane of the clubface. "The language in the USGA rule allowed edges to become sharper as the groove sidewall becomes less steep," Roger Cleveland, Callaway's design guru, told SI in an e-mail. "Despite the fact our MAW groove design fit within the USGA's original specifications, we clearly invented something that they didn't anticipate. It performed so well that they decided to reject it, claiming the MAW groove violated the spirit of the rule."

Contrary to reports, the face of the MAW wedge did not look like this.

Meanwhile Lawrence Donegan agreed with me that this little PR firestorm is a good thing for the game, taking issue with Tim Rosaforte's assertion that this was the last thing Tim Finchem needed to be dealing with.

Excuse me but how can 464,000 Google hits on a golf-related story be a bad thing? And what is so awful about a golf story being featured on Sportscenter (which is the nightly sports news show broadcast on ESPN)?

As for PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem having to deal with a great, big, fat controversy not long after his most famous PGA Tour member was revealed to have been leading a double life - isn't that why he gets paid the ridiculous sum of $5 million (or so)? To handle, or rather capitalise on, these things?

And because golf is a gentlemen's game where the players police themselves and therefore don't need drug testing, E. Michael Johnson reports that players are bugging their tour reps for a dealer who can supply them with some old PING wedges. They can also just go on ebay, as Ryan Ballengee explains.

But Padraig Harrington reportedly has some in his bag though he hasn't decided whether to engage in cheating (which is different than being a cheater!).