Here is the new rule.
contained in the text is this statement:
IIRC, this new rule is applicable to golf only at the “highest levels.” Non conforming grooves will be allowed at local (and perhaps statewide) tournaments.
Also, IIRC, the PGATour can implement a “local rule” outlawing the ping eye2 clubs. On the other hand, they might be handcuffed the same lawsuit because they might have been co-defendants.
That is not the new rule. That is a press release outlining the new rule. There is a difference, as you should know. 
Now, in a “Notice to Manufacturers” dated 8/5/2008, the following language can be found:
“5. In accordance with previous agreements, clubs manufactured before March 31, 1990 that meet the criteria of USGA Decision USGA/4-1/100, such as the Ping Eye 2, will be treated by the USGA as conforming to the Rules of Golf and will continue to be acceptable for all USGA competitions.”
This is, of course, still not the rule.
Here is the actual rule, which is found in Appendix II to the Rules of Golf (USGA). Scroll down to 5. c. (i). You will note that the rule itself makes no mention of the Ping Eye-Two irons.
So, unless there is some part of the Rules that I’ve not seen, the rule on club specs does not itself make mention of the clubs grandfathered in by the 1990 settlement of the Ping lawsuit. They are, thus, actually as I described in violation of the rules. They simply are exempted from disqualification by the legal effect of that suit settlement.
As for Mickleson, as I said, he’s not “cheating” by using them, and Scott McCarron should have been more careful with his language. They are, however, in violation of the spirit of the rule. Of course, the simple response to that is, “so what?”
Oh, and gonzomax, pay attention. Your analogy is only superficially correlative. The steroids were not in violation of the rules at all, unlike the “u”-grooved, sharp-edged irons in question.
My understanding was that the grooves were going to be outlawed locally a couple of years later. But I don’t really pay attention to such things. My irons have to be at least 15 years old, and the grooves are not the explanation for my handicap…
Using the wedges is clearly violating the spirit of the rule, but this is golf. The spirit of the rules has no place in golf. You get penalized for kneeling on a towel to keep your pants dry; you get penalized for forgetting to exchange cards with your playing partner; you get penalized for forgetting a plastic club in the bottom of your bag, or when your son’s friend picks up one of your clubs. You can treat a giant boulder as a movable obstruction, if you happen to have a few dozen spectators with you.
The governing body says the wedges are legal, so they’re legal.
Interesting points, borsch.
Seems the rules are to be applied extremely rigidly with no view towards “intention” when they “penalize” someone. Also, it is understood that the rules can be applied strictly in order to derive a benefit - as with the boulder you describe, or certain other instances where a golfer may obtain relief.
I’m curious as to your response, DSY.
I am aware of no instance where a “boulder” was considered a movable obstruction, so I can’t speak to that assertion. But as for the overall topic, what part of the statement I made that what Mickelson was doing was legal are y’all not getting? :dubious:
I was referencing the time when Tiger had people from the gallery move a rock for him. I was wrong about the rule involved; it was a loose impediment.
Seems like I see that footage of the gallery moving the boulder for Tiger every other time I turn on the Golf Channel. 
I have just been suggesting the confusion I personally experience when people talk about “the spirit of the law.” ISTM that the plain meaning of a rule/law is generally the best place to look. And I don’t know that there is much “meaning” to be gleaned from this type of equipment rule other than whether specific equipment is or is not legal. In such situations the USGA impresses me as generally operating pretty much in black and white - rather than offering “suggestions” gently steering individuals to adopt certain equipment over other.
Golf has chosen to operate in such manner, by refusing to look into whether DiVincenzo signing an incorrect scorecard, someone kneeling on a towel, or a guy who forgot to take his kid’s cut-down club out of his bag intended to gain (or actually gained) any advantage.
I know little of golf. Can someone post pictures of the 2 types of clubs so we know what this big hubbub is about?
You should be able to google some images. The clubs themselves appear identical in terms of the size, shape, and composition of their heads. The difference is in the sape of the grooves that run across the faces of most golf clubs. The outlawed ones have grooves that are literally shaped like a squared-off letter U. The permitted ones have grooves shaped like a V. Apparently, the U-shaped grooves allow the pros to impart considerably more spin.
You can easily see the groove pattern on the U-shaped grooves by the naked eye. Actually, the grooves on the Ping Eye 2’s I have look a bit like this: |_| They’re rather squared off.
They barely help me play worth a darn (or, more precisely, did help, because they’ve been dormant for about five years), but I lent them to a semi-pro golfer a while back and he was shocked by how effective they were.
OK, PGA pros, start the bidding at $500 for the wedge.
You can see some groove sketches in the link that I provided above.
This is an incorrect statement.
“U” shaped grooves are allowed, under the rule. “U”-shaped grooves with squared off edges are not. There must be a rounding to the edge of a “U”-shaped groove. Further, “U”-shaped grooves will have to be spaced further apart than “V”-shaped grooves, since they allow more channeling of water, etc.
Thanks. I readily acknowledge my ignorance, retract my prior statement, and defer to DSY’s expertise.
Maybe I’ll figure out what is at stake one of these decades should I ever decide to get new irons. But - as my pro told me when I was considering getting some new wedges, “Your wedges are fine. With you, the problem is ALL with the indian, not with the bow!”
IMO, as an engineer, the squared corner vs rounded corner is the primary difference in spin. The square corner can grip the ball more efficiently than the rounded corner.
To give an everyday example of the rounded corner vs a square corner. Get out your wallet and take out one of your credit cards. The corners are rounded. If the corners were 90*, the credit card could puncture your skin.
I have to ask…that’s it? It seems so trivial, especially since these are tiny grooves
The difference in spin rates, especially out of tall grass is quite substantial. The “U”-shaped grooves are better at channeling water away from the contact area, and the sharp corners of the now-banned grooves grip the soft surface of the ball better, imparting more spin to it.
That’s another reason it helps the pros more than…well, duffers like me: pros tend to use golf balls with softer covers.
Mind you, I wouldn’t call the corners “sharp” exactly–they’re more like the edge of a table, very slightly beveled. They’re closer to a 90 degree angle than what’s allowed now, but it’s not as if you run the risk of getting cut if you run your fingers across them.
Mickelson is not cheating.
He is also not breaking the spirit of the law/rule, because the language inserted into the rules by the governing body clearly states they are allowed.
What he is doing is** taking advantage** of a ruling and taking advantage of the people who can’t also take advantage of it. Hey, the reality is that sponsors and club loyalty are part of the gig… so yeah, they technically can do what he is doing, but they realistically can not. And that’s the point. We know, in the real world, as things really work in golf, that not everyone can use that rule to their benefit. Yes, technically, they can. Let’s get past that though.
Now, if it were me, and there was this much controversy, I’d give up the iron in question, because they do offer an advantage that others can’t – in reality – take advantage of.
.
Essentially that’s it. But yes, it does a make a difference. The change isn’t much to the naked eye, but it is the relative change.
What is the difference between 4 parts per million and 6 parts per million. On an absolute scale, it is only 2 ppm, but on a relative scale 6 ppm is 50% more than 4 ppm.