Follow-Up Questions For Phil After His Presser Yesterday

After phoning into Commissioner Finchem's press conference yesterday, I was fortunate enough to get a twofer and listen to Phil Mickelson's presser.  It was a passionate and, at times, testy conference between Phil and the media.  Phil himself invoked a lot of strong emotion about how he feels about the loophole, his actions, Dick Rugge, the USGA, and the Tour's handling of this situation. 

Unfortunately, I wasn't there to ask him questions or press him on several issues with his statements.  That said, here's what I would have said to or asked Phil based upon several of his responses yesterday.  Remember, these are Mickelson's words as they are (though not necessarily the full response to a question, cause sometimes he blabbers like anyone might).

PM: In regards to the groove and playing the club and whatnot, I have been very upset over the way the entire groove rule has come about and its total lack of transparency. I'm very upset with the way the rule came about, the way one man essentially can approve or not approve a golf club based on his own personal decision regardless of what the rule says. This has got to change. To come out and change a rule like this that has a loophole has got to change. It's ridiculous. It hurts the game, and you cannot put the players in a position to interpret what the rule has meant. That's why we have a decisions book, to decide this stuff.

RB: Phil, you said that one man approves clubs, basically on a whim.  But what about all of the documentation that the USGA produces to inform manufacturers about the "spec box" in which equipment must fit?  More specifically, what about this document that the USGA has issued about groove specs?  It would seem that Mr. Rugge is not making decisions based on a whim.

Further, the Rules of Golf grant the USGA wide-ranging powers to reject equipment submitted that does not intend to meet a specification.  From Appendix II of the Rules of Golf:

Where a club, or part of a club, is required to meet a specification within the Rules, it must be designed and manufactured with the intention of meeting that specification.

As for ambiguity about what clubs are legal or not, how about this database that the USGA maintains of clubs that are approved for play? Further, what about the reps that the USGA has sent out to events in the hopes of helping players measure their grooves for compliance, but have not been utilized?

It seems like the USGA has been trying to get the word out there, but what more documentation and outreach would be useful to the players and manufacturers?

To see more of Phil's remarks and my follow up questions/comments, read more after the jump.

PM: I respect these players out here. I like and respect these players. And last year when my wife and I were at one of our low points, these players came together and did one of the nicest things that could have ever been done to show support, and it meant tons for me. And out of respect for them, I do not want to have an advantage over anybody, whether it's perceived or actual.

RB: Now knowing from Commissioner Finchem that the Ping Eye 2s spin 20% more than the 2010-compliant grooves, how come you decided to take an advantage over the players that you respect for a week at a venue where you have already been very successful?

PM: So this week I won't be playing that wedge. My point has been made. I won't play it. ... But I hope that players continue to play the wedge.

RB: Then you would agree that playing wedges with the spin advantage was not about competitive advantage so much as a public statement through action? 

I'm not certain about this, but it sounds like you don't want to have a perceived or actual advantage over players by using the PE2s, but you're ok with other players doing so.  How come?

PM: I believe that the TOUR and the Commissioner is finally taking this seriously and will hopefully put pressure and get something done amongst the governing bodies to stop what's been going on for years.

RB: It does seem like Commissioner Finchem is intent on ending this situation, which he says is one of five times as Commissioner that he has been very frustrated.  Again, though, I'm not certain what you mean by "going on for years."  Do you mean this specific loophole, which really had no impact on the game until January 1?  Or do you mean equipment decisions in general, such as the '04 decision around "spring-like effect" of drivers and the setting of a maximum coefficient of restitution?  Would you seek the ban of the long putter that Scott McCarron uses?

PM: I didn't catch all that jarble (sic), but I thought my point was pretty clear amongst most everybody else.

PM: I think it was a ridiculous rule change and even worse timing. It's cost manufacturers millions of dollars. It continues to cost them money as we now have to hire people to scan, document and store data of every club of every groove on every single club. It was unnecessary. It was an attempt to show power. And the arbitrary judgment of one man can take a conforming club and rule it non conforming based on his emotion, this type of lack of transparency has got to change. It's killing the sport. It's killing the manufacturers, the players. We don't understand the rule, and it needs to be changed.

RB: What do you mean by poor timing?  The USGA announced its joint proposal with the R&A in February 2007, almost 18 months before the stock market crash.

Calling this an attempt to show power seems to fly in the face of the stated purpose of the change: to bring back the correlation between hitting fairways and winning golf tournaments.  The USGA attempts to do the same thing each year at the US Open by creating especially difficult playing conditions.  Would you prefer, like Rory McIlroy, that courses are the instrument by which scoring (and fan enjoyment) is determined?  Also, would you be interested in having no caps on equipment?  The prior equipment standards have led to the lengthening - and arguably ruining - of many of this nation's classic courses.

Again, I would reiterate one of my initial questions: what can and should the USGA do to further clarify the rule so that everyone is on the same page?  Provided that their services have been ignored at tournament site, what else can be done?  A rules summit?

As for the manufacturers and the lack of transparency that you mention, it seems like the USGA has issued supplemental documentation to the grooves rules that explain that attempts to create clubs which technically comply with the rules but defy the intent of the rule will not be deemed conforming.  Admittedly, that seems like a bit of a moving target.  Would applying a specific spin standard for clubs with greater than 25 degrees of loft be useful?