Phil's Slandered Clippings, Vol. 1
/
Okay so Phil Mickelson uttered his new mantra "publicly slandered" several times, but we'll go with the version that was in Doug Ferguson's AP story (he also said it in his CBS interview with Peter Kostis and with TGC's Jim Gray).
But after a 70 in the third round put Mickelson within four shots of the lead, he made it clear he would not go quietly.
“We all have our opinions on the matter, but a line was crossed and I just was publicly slandered,” Mickelson said. “And because of that, I’ll have to let other people handle that.”
Asked if he was contemplating a lawsuit, Mickelson said, “I’m not going into specifics what that meant.”
Larry Dorman concluded this from the quote:
With that handoff of the grooves issue to tour brass back in Ponte Vedra, Fla. — a clear implication that he expects McCarron to receive fines, a suspension or both — Mickelson turned his focus back to doing what it will take to pass the five players between himself and Imada and start the year with a win at his season opener.
Which brings us to the local rule question and why the tour didn't invoke one. Yesterday the tour issued its first statement and I missed this in a Ferguson AP story:
PGA Tour spokesman Ty Votaw said it had a different settlement with Ping in 1993 that contained “different conditions,” which would allow the tour to ban the Ping clubs.
Jim Achenbach of Golfweek filed this earlier in the week in which PING had a very different take.
How could the PGA Tour prohibit the wedges?
Said Solheim, “Their (the PGA Tour) agreement with us is that they will follow USGA rules. They do have an out to that, where they can go through several procedures and prove they have a need. It’s not an easy thing to do, by any means. I think there is no way they could meet the protocol.”
Explaining that protocol, Ping attorney Rawleigh Grove said, “It’s a series of steps. It’s all about the science of it. There would have to be a panel of experts, if you will, to make sure that the right decision is being made. This is no benefit for us. There is no payment, no money changing hands.”
Steve Elling wonders why the tour took so long to cover Phil's back. Perhaps because he was trying to create trouble and deserved to dangle a bit on his own (that's why I'll never be Commissioner).
After ignoring a legion of news-gathering organizations that requested formal tour comment Friday about what McCarron said, the Ponte Vedra brass awakened Saturday afternoon and finally conceded that the veteran had over-reached. Of course, the tour still didn't have the gumption to actually mention by name either McCarron or Mickelson, who did nothing wrong and had his character assaulted.
The tour left Mickelson twisting the wind for a day before doing the right thing.
Elling also notes:
Ping officials told reporters at the PGA Merchandise Show in Orlando that the original agreement with the tour from 1993 means the Eye 2 clubs are grandfathered in and that any modification of that pact would be a highly complicated affair.
Here is the PGA Tour's statement, promulgated for your reading enjoyment.
In light of the public comments that have been made regarding the use of pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons in competitions sanctioned by the PGA TOUR, it is important for our players, fans and the media to understand the following:
• Under the Rules of Golf and the 2010 Condition of Competition for Groove Specifications promulgated by the USGA, pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons are permitted for play and any player who uses them in PGA TOUR sanctioned events taking place in jurisdictions of the USGA is not in violation of the Rules of Golf; and
• Because the use of pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons is permitted for play, public comments or criticisms characterizing their use as a violation of the Rules of Golf as promulgated by the USGA are inappropriate at best.
Commissioner Finchem will address this issue in greater detail on Tuesday, Feb. 2 during a regularly scheduled player meeting and with the media during the 2010 Northern Trust Open.
Oh goodie! I'll be there too! Feel free to email your questions for the Commissioner.
Back to Saturday and Mickelson v. McCarron, Bob Harig writes:
It is quite possible that McCarron, a member of the tour's Player Advisory Council and a former member of the Policy Board, could be fined, suspended or both for his comments.
But we'll never know unless he informs us, because the tour does not announce such discipline.
One clue might come next week at the Northern Trust Open in Los Angeles, where McCarron is listed as part of the field. If he suddenly withdraws, perhaps that is your answer.
He also shared this from Ernie Els:
"It's ridiculous, isn't it?'' said Ernie Els. "Basically all the governing bodies stood back and let the players handle the whole issue again. It's almost a little too late now, because all the damage has been done already. Some players have spoken out against other players, which we don't want to see out here on tour, and it's unfortunate.''
So where does this mess leave us? I guess I'm back to where this all started earlier in the week when Phil essentially knew he was stirring the pot and even taking a risk that it might blow up in his face.
What would motivate him to add a 20-year-old club to his bag just a week or so before starting his season, even if he hadn't been using it all off-season and even though it would make his friends at Callaway look bad since they are also in the wedge business.
Ryan Ballengee makes an impressive and detailed case that Mickelson and Callaway have finally figured out that by agreeing to the groove rule change they effectively endorsed a bifurcation of the rules. Now, most of us observers knew this the moment the USGA made the announcement and wondered why all these big, smart, powerful CEO's didn't see it. 
Anyway, here's Ballengee's key conclusion posted amidst several interesting anecdotes and links to intriguing stories from the past:
Mickelson is not only pursuing this vendetta on his behalf, though. It is clear that he is also doing this on behalf of Callaway Golf, his equipment sponsor. A source very close to Callaway and its CEO George Fellows indicated that Fellows has been furious that the USGA has been discussing the new regulations as a collaborative effort between the ruling body and manufacturers. Fellows is furious at the rule, its impact on innovation, and the penalty that the rule imposes on professional golfers.
That flies in the face of public comments that Fellows made in an April 2008 interview with The Economist (after the USGA introduced its grooves proposal in February 2007), endorsing bifurcation of the equipment rules of the sport.
Callaway has to conform to a welter of arcane specifications: there are regulations about how far from the centre of the club a ball can be hit and still go straight, for example. These are intended to stop Tiger Woods shooting 30 under par, but also make the game less fun for less gifted players. Golf needs to "bifurcate" into a professional sport and a game for the masses, says Mr Fellows.
What Fellows and Callaway face for the next fourteen years is effectively bifurcation of the equipment rules of the sport. His vision of bifurcation, though, was to keep equipment rules as they had been and allow for a smaller regulations box for amateur equipment.
And just think, it would all have been so much easier to roll the ball back and let everyone keep what they had in the bag. Whew, glad that never happened. This is SO much more fun!
