This weekend at Merion there have been many rulings come into play, whether it was an unplayable bunker lie or a water hazard there have been drops and strokes added. This is when we catch a glimpse of a rules official helping make the right call. So what is it these rules officials do? How many are there? The MGA’s Lisa Overom is inside the ropes this week officiating group and learning the ways of Merion.

What do the rules officials do before the event?

Like the players getting in a practice round to chart the course, the rules officials tour the course days before the event to get the lay of the land and note where situations could occur. They receive hole-by-hole notes that tell them where each hazard and drop area is. With large events like the U.S. Open, temporary immovable objects, such as grandstands and leader boards, come into play. Drop zones are designated for such situations to help speed up play.

How many rules officials are at events like the U.S. Open?

Because we don’t get to see what’s going on behind the scenes and only see players we don’t always see the rules officials unless something comes up. Rules officials are flown in from all over the world and each ruling association. Each group of players has a rules official assigned to them. Yup, each group has a rules official with them to help make the right call.

What’s a typical day like for a rules official?

As mentioned before, the rules officials are assigned to each group. The group changes daily, unless a group cannot finish their round such as the case at Merion due to weather issues. For this U.S. Open the rules officials stayed with the same group for the first two days because of overlapping rounds.

Like the players, the rules officials get to the course well before the group’s tee time. They check in, get their radios, notes, and any other special information about the day. As soon as the first ball is hit they are on the job, walking with the group the entire round. Generally the last people to leave the course, they put in a full day of work.

As you watch the U.S. Open this weekend you might catch a glimpse of a rules official helping a player. Even though we don’t always see them, they are always around a crucial element to any golf event.

Wearegolf.com

There was a media frenzy with everyone having an opinion. Social media was alive with theories. Even the participants in the Rules Workshop I was
conducting were buzzing with a renewed interest despite having to spend “Moving Day” [at The Masters] in a hotel meeting room learning about the Rules.

It took Fred Ridley, Chair of the Committee, a considerable length of time to make a public statement after it had been announced Tiger was not disqualified
but would be assessed a two-stroke penalty for having played from a wrong place when taking relief under Rule 26-1 the previous day. After he spoke, it left
many, including PGA Tour pro Ernie Els, Golf Channel analyst Brandel Chamblee and two-time Masters champion and CBS analyst Nick Faldo, wondering
how and why Tiger had not been disqualified. Some, including Faldo and Chamblee, suggested Tiger should “man up” and withdraw to save the tournament
and the game from public humiliation. Others believe in a conspiracy theory – a behind the scenes agreement between the Masters, CBS Sports and Tiger.
Of course, some still believe LBJ had something to do with JFK’s assassination.

Yet, in the aftermath of the public outcry, once the facts were presented and studied came the realization that the ruling was correct. Well, some have come to
that point … others are still not convinced. Allow me to revisit the facts to show the ruling is correct. But, before I do, I will make two assertions:

#1: I cannot explain how or why Tiger lost focus when taking relief. He is known to be one of the more knowledgeable players when it comes to the Rules.
However, after many other well documented gaffes by his peers, and the bungled attempt by David Feherty to explain Tiger’s options, it goes to show that
mistakes can be made.

#2: I believe the Committee made an error in not speaking with Tiger in the Scoring Area when it had the opportunity Friday

afternoon. We may never know
the reason for this. Mr. Ridley said, after reviewing the tape, the Committee did not believe there was a breach. Using 20/20 hindsight most will come to a
different conclusion.

There is no doubt Tiger dropped and played from a wrong place; even Tiger admitted to that. Rule 26-1 allows the player to drop under “stroke and
distance” as one of the options. Rule 20-5 specifically states the players must drop “as near as possible” to the spot from which the original ball was last
played. This means where the ball must first strike the course – not necessarily where it ends up after the drop. PGA Rules instructor Ed Hoard used to
teach that “as near as possible” meant about 6”. The penalty under Rule 26 for this breach is two strokes.

Someone happened to notice the possible issue, so they alerted the Committee, which in turn began its investigation. While Tiger was playing the 18th hole,
the Committee reached the conclusion that there had not been a breach. Therefore, it elected not to speak to Tiger about it in the Scoring Area. This is
critical. By dealing with the question and reaching its decision, the Committee had, in essence, made a ruling – despite the fact the player didn’t even know.

After Tiger made his infamous comments during the interview later, the Committee took notice and elected to revisit the previous ruling. They met with Tiger
Saturday morning in order to ask questions. During this interview, it was stated Tiger admitted to dropping in a wrong place. (While he may have said he
“intentionally” dropped two yards away, he was mistaken with his ability to do so.). Thus, Tiger had signed his card with a score of 6 for the 15th hole, when
it should have been an 8, a breach of Rule 6-6d that carries with it a penalty of disqualification.

However, the Committee had ruled on the issue the day before and had not elected to speak with Tiger in the Scoring Area. We can look to Decision 34-
3/1.5 – “Committee Error and Scoring in Stroke Play” for guidance on such an issue. Some key concepts in this Decision are as follows:

1. “The player is entitled to act on such information in his subsequent play.” This means, the player may proceed based on information the
Committee gives him, even if incorrect. In Tiger’s case, to sign the score card believing it is correct.
2. “When a referee (Committee) makes a specific ruling that is contrary to the Rules in a specific situation, the player should be exempt from
penalty.” Tiger is exempt from the disqualification penalty for signing an incorrect card.
3. “In these situations, the Committee should resolve the matter in whatever manner it considers most equitable, in light of all the facts and with the
objective of ensuring that no player receives an undue advantage or disadvantage.” By assessing Tiger the two-stroke penalty for having played from the
wrong place, it restored things to the way they should have been if they had discussed the issue with Tiger in Scoring.

Finally, Fred Ridley referred to Rule 33-7. This is the Rule that permits the Committee to “waive, modify or impose” a penalty of disqualification in
exceptional circumstances. It is this rule that allowed the Masters Committee to waive the disqualification penalty for Tiger. (Reference had been made by
the media to Decision 33-7/4.5 erroneously. That decision is not relevant.)

In my opinion, not only did Mr. Ridley and the

Committee get the ruling correct, they took the most difficult option. It would have been easy, and popular in
the eyes of many, to disqualify Tiger, but he would have had every right to be angry at such an action.

By assessing Tiger the two-stroke penalty and allowing him to play, despite the firestorm of negative publicity and the accusations of preferential treatment, the
Committee upheld the Rules of Golf.

“One can survive everything nowadays, except death, and live down anything except a good reputation.”

“Yesterday afternoon, the Rules Committee was made aware of a possible Rules violation that involved a drop by Tiger Woods on the 15th hole.

“In preparation for his fifth shot, the player dropped his ball in close proximity to where he had played his third shot in apparent conformance with Rule 26. After being prompted by a television viewer, the Rules Committee reviewed a video of the shot while he was playing the 18th hole. At that moment and based on that evidence, the Committee determined he had complied with the Rules.

“After he signed his scorecard, and in a television interview subsequent to the round, the player stated that he played further from the point than where he had played his third shot. Such action would constitute playing from the wrong place.

“The subsequent information provided by the player’s interview after he had completed play warranted further review and discussion with him this morning. After meeting with the player, it was determined that he had violated Rule 26, and he was assessed a two stroke penalty. The penalty of disqualification was waived by the Committee under Rule 33 as the Committee had previously reviewed the information and made its initial determination prior to the finish of the player’s round.”

To sum it up, the committee reviewed the player’s actions at 15 and determined no rules breach. After hearing Tiger’s post-round comments, and meeting with him this morning, the committee changes its mind and determines a breach has occurred.

Would not a simple question at the scorer’s table, before he signed his card, been in order?

In light of Tiger’s statement after the second round, where he said that he put a new ball in play about two yards from the spot where he played his previous shot [to tweak his yardage to the hole], do you think waiving the DQ penalty was the right call?

Read Decision 33-7/4.5.

Editor’s note: The Masters’ competitions committee invoked Rule 33-7 in their action to waive the penalty of disqualification (not Decision 33-7/4.5).

Streamsong is a lyrical name that implies gently flowing water through idyllic meadowlands – not the spoil piles and hollows of reclaimed phosphate mining property.  Yet players who visit the resort will find a spot ideally suited to golf: 36 holes in perfect harmony with the rolling, sandy land on which they were built.  Had the golf courses not been built, the land would have been flattened back into pasture, indistinguishable from the hundreds of thousands of surrounding acres. Phosphate mining results in steep piles of sandy spoils and water-filled troughs; in 1975 the Florida legislature mandated that phosphate companies restore each individual acre of land that is mined to specific contouring and revegetation standards. The sandy peaks and valleys of the Streamsong site – grown over with native grasses as the years went by – constituted a links-style golf complex waiting to happen.

The clubhouse – a modern rectangle somewhat reminiscent of a giant boxcar plopped down on Mars – is the first site that greets visitors as they drive between the dunes on the resort’s entrance road. Inside it is cool and softly lit, the full-length windows drawing sunlight into the high-ceilinged pro shop and bar.

The first tee for Coore-Crenshaw’s Red Course is immediately adjacent to the clubhouse and putting green, overlooking a small lake where a healthy-looking alligator or two might be lolling along the banks below. The tee shot over the water to the first fairway is inspiring – it is not a particularly long carry, and the fairway is wide, though a bunker on the right side about 200 yards out must be avoided. From there, several sets of bunkers flank the fairway, which rises gently to a large green that slopes rather pointedly from back to front. It’s a comfortable beginning that allows the golfer to take in the remarkable sights of this strange, sandy property without feeling especially intimidated.

Much the same can be said for most of the holes on the Red. Few of the holes will beat you up – particularly if you choose the right set of tees, which range from 5,184 yards to 7,148 yards. There is water to negotiate on seven of the first eight holes – the alligators particularly enjoy sunning themselves around the peninsula fairway of the par-5 second hole – but the architects always provide a reasonable carry and a wide landing area. As with most Coore-Crenshaw courses, the hazards are subtly worked into the landscape to look as though they existed before the first bulldozer arrived; but there are bunkers of all sizes and descriptions, and the player who can’t control his or her ball, or falls asleep momentarily, will frequently be fighting to stave off double-bogey.

Highlight holes on the Red include the short, diabolical 8^th hole, a 120-yard par-3 with water hard by the left side of the narrow, S-shaped green; the remarkable par-3 16^th, featuring a 180-yard tee shot over water to an enormous Biarritz green, set stunningly against the side of a giant sand hill; and the otherworldly 18^th, a gently-curving uphill par-5 with the property’s largest sand dune running along the entire right side of the hole.

Tom Doak’s Blue course intersects in a couple of spots with the Red, but it has its own unique character – primarily at the green sites, where a misplaced approach shot might count for a green in regulation, but an almost guaranteed three-putt as well. The Blue gets off to a spectacular beginning with a first tee perched high atop one of the largest spoil piles on the property. Even walkers get a ride to the top of the hill for their tee shot, and their best look at the entire complex. From that point on, the Blue is an easy walk, except for the trek from the par-3 7^th tee down the hill, across the lake, up to the green, and back across the bridge and up the hill again to the 8^th tee. The mild inconvenience of that walk is justified by the dramatic nature of the hole, which sits directly to the right of Coore-Crenshaw’s aforementioned Biarritz 16^th. It’s hard to choose between the two par-3 beauties, but golfers will have a perfect opportunity to compare the two holes, both of which feature a mid-iron tee shot over the same lake to huge greens with difficult contours. On #7 Blue, one would do well to keep right; a tee shot (or a chip or even a putt) that rolls off the back left side of the green is headed for the water.

Other memorable holes include the tough par-4 8^th, where pinching ponds short left and right of the elevated green make going for it in regulation a gamble, and laying up a problem of its own; the short par-4 13^th where driver might get you to the green with a tailwind, but could also end up in the sand or water that protects the long, narrow green; the par-5 14^th, a cape hole that tempts the player to cut off a big chunk of the water that flanks the right side of the fairway; and the uphill, par-5 17^th, with a series of cross bunkers that ask for heroic carries or well-thought-out layups.

On both the Red and the Blue, players will walk off the course knowing that the challenge was at least as much mental as physical. Neither course demands long and straight play at all times; a good caddy, or a careful examination of the yardage book, will be a big advantage to the golfer who enjoys thinking his way around a golf course.

As word continues to filter back to Minnesota about Streamsong, it is likely that more and more of our snowbirds will treat themselves to the experience in the winters to come.

Louis Lick once won consecutive state high school golf championships (1940-41) as a golfer from St. Paul Central High School. Even more rare, Lick won the individual NCAA golf title in 1944 as a U of M golfer and held this distinction for more than fifty years until fellow Golden Gopher James Mclean won the NCAA in 1998. See Lick’s obituary at mngolf.org.

Streamsong was the brainchild of Richard Mack, a North Dakota native who attended Moorhead State University and Hamline law school in the 1980s before beginning his career at Cargill in the Twin Cities. Mack played both basketball and golf in college and has participated in a half-dozen MGA State Amateurs and two State Opens. He is currently a member of Windsong Farm Golf Club.

“I used to be pretty good, but now I’m only good enough to get my rear end beat badly by the kids in school,” Mack said. Yet his continuing love of the game merged with his position as executive vice president of Mosaic, a fertilizer manufacturing subsidiary of Cargill, resulting in the creation of what is shaping up to be America’s next destination golf complex.

Streamsong, located between Tampa and Orlando, was built on 700 acres of land amid a 16,000-acre former phosphate mine site owned by Mosaic. Mack is in charge of restoring the company’s spent mine sites to usable land, and after seeing the massive sand dunes and hollows left behind on the Streamsong site when the mine closed, it occurred to him that a golf resort would be a far more interesting and profitable project than turning the property back to nondescript flatland. The timing of such a project was not the greatest – when Streamsong was being conceived in 2007, the golf business was entering some historically lean times – but Mack convinced his board of directors that there was still room at the top of the golf world for another exceptional destination.

“Florida does not need two more golf courses,” Mack said, describing the typical Florida course as “very flat, with water left, water right, palmetto bushes and wood chips.” But Florida could surely make room for courses designed by two of the most admired and respected architectural firms in the business. Mack selected Coore-Crenshaw and Doak – both of whom had designed courses at Bandon Dunes – among numerous firms that hoped to land the high-profile job. The two teams collaborated with each other to the extent of swapping a few holes that had initially been on each others’ layouts.

“What we built is not your ordinary Florida golf course,” Mack said. “We hope to be included in the same conversation with the greatest golf resorts in the United States.”

That is already taking place. Preliminary reports from Streamsong indicate that players love the open spaces, windswept dunes, native grasses, blow-out bunkers and water features that capture some of Sand Hills, some of Bandon, some of Long Island, and some of the British Isles while projecting a character all its own.

“Once Bill Coore got out here, he called Ben Crenshaw almost immediately and said, ‘You are not going to believe what we’re seeing here,’ ” Mack said. “Doak said, ‘If I parachuted in, and you gave me 50 guesses where I am, my 47th guess would be Florida.’ ”

Though Mack will continue to spearhead the project from the Twin Cities, he expects to visit Streamsong up to 40 times in its inaugural season. His pride in the new resort is easy to discern.

“I love the game, and it’s been a lifelong dream to work on this project,” he said. “This is a showcase illustration of what can be done on reclaimed land.”

The use of an anchored stroke on the PGA Tour has seen steady increases since 2006, according to the  rules-makers, with an almost 10 percent jump from 2010 to 2012. Three of the last five golf majors were won using longer putters and an anchored stroke, but the rules-makers were explicit in omitting the prohibition against the use of long or belly putters from the proposed anchoring rules change. In other words, long and belly-length putters are still ok — as long as the club is not anchored in making a stroke.

The USGA has created a handy “infographic” illustrating permitted and prohibited methods: click here. Below is the proposed rules language which would take effect on Jan. 1, 2016:

14-1b Anchoring the Club
In making a stroke, the player must not anchor the club, either “directly” or by use of an “anchor point.”

Note 1:  The club is anchored “directly” when the player intentionally holds the club or a gripping hand in contact with any part of his body, except that the player may hold the club or a gripping hand against a hand or forearm.

Note 2:  An “anchor point” exists when the player intentionally holds a forearm in contact with any part of his body to establish a gripping hand as a stable point around which the other hand may swing the club.

The proposed rules change comes at a time when the business of golf has been buffeted by cultural changes, economic challenges and flagging participation. Opponents to 14-1b say the ban is ill-timed and question its impact on the growth of the game. Timing of the proposal aside, to conclude that prohibiting the anchor method of making a stroke, a ban that is effectively three years in the future, will have a negative impact on golf participation is to be ignorant of the factors that drive golf participation.

Here in Minnesota, the two biggest factors driving golf participation are weather and access. Thanks largely to an early spring and favorable golf weather, rounds in 2012 were up 7.7 percent. Minnesota has long enjoyed one of the highest golfer participation rates in the country, due in large measure to access: about 90 percent of our golf courses are open to the public.

I also happen to believe in a more anecdotal explanation for our inordinately out-sized love of the game here: Minnesotan’s appreciate decent weather, we take advantage of getting outdoors at every opportunity, and playing golf is just one of the many ways we satisfy the urge to get outside and play.

14-1b will change the way a small number of golfers swing the putter. For these golfers who’ve adopted the anchored stroke, whether as a first or last resort, they will have to conform to the rules and learn how to stroke the ball “with two hands… swinging freely.”

In any case, the rules-makers have upheld convention by a fine-tuning of the definition of the golf stroke — anchoring is on its way out. And in the big picture that’s a good thing for the best interests of the game going forward.